[News] Linux - The Problem is Indifference and Lack of Curiousity?
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Final Words ]
| ...while it's no secret that the OS (Linux) is easier to use and much more
| robust than ever before, a lot of people just don't see a need to really
| care about what's going on in the Penguin Land. Everyday users just go
| with the majority, and it would take some drastic changes for most peoplet
| o seriously consider using Linux as a primary (or even secondary)
| operating system. Of course, it doesn't help that Microsoft and Apple
| have ripped off some of the unique features of the OS and tried to make
| them theirs, but that's a completely different story.
`----
http://osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=&task=view&id=2284
Jim
I wonder if Microsoft using WGA to kill "unlicensed" boxen is drastic
enough?
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
Some people are like Slinkies;
They serve no particular purpose,
But they bring a smile to your face
When you push them down the stairs.
JDS
> http://osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=&task=view&id=2284
What a shitty, pointless, rambling, useless article.
--
JDS
Hadron Quark
At least he was honest:
,----
| Installation was a nightmare, the GUI gave me vertigo, and trying to get
| anything to work like it actually should have proved to be futile for my
| skill level at the time. I could open the text editor and type some
| stuff, but that was about it. Beyond that point, I was completely lost.
`----
I tried it a few years ago and gave up. It really was a nightmare. And
when looking for help I just got called a troll and a Windiot and told
to RTFM. By some of those lurking here too funny enough.
Roy Schestowitz
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:54:42 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> http://osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=&task=view&id=2284
>
> What a shitty, pointless, rambling, useless article.
Reminds me of a headline that I saw in the Inquirer today...
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33526
"That piece you've written on ATI and AMD is a waste of cyberspace"
I suppose it may be a valid point when...
There's a blog born every half second
,----[ Quote ]
| According to recent statistics from blog-tracking site Technorati,
| the blogosphere has doubled every six months for the last three years.
| That's 175,000 new blogs per day worldwide. Technorati added its 50
| millionth blog on July 31, 2006.
`----
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6102935.html
But a lot of them are spam and duplicates (for SEO), surely.
JDS
> At least he was honest:
Honesty is fine. But the author of the column is simply not a very good
*writer*. And that is my point. I'm not trying to say the author was
Linux bashing or Linux promoting or MS bashing or whatever. I just think
-- and this thought is based on reading several other articles written by
the same author -- that he has a meandering, unfocused, poorly thought out
writing style that leaves me wondering and unsatisfied.
--
JDS
Hadron Quark
Shh. You'll be accused of being "foolish" or a troll. FWIW, I agree :
the article sucked.
The Ghost In The Machine
<jef...@invalid.address>
wrote
on Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:39:41 -0400
<pan.2006.08.08....@invalid.address>:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:54:42 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> http://osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=&task=view&id=2284
>
> What a shitty, pointless, rambling, useless article.
[1] They can't even keep their styles straight for two pages?
This is giving *me* vertigo. Or at least a mild headache.
[2] Dated 2006-08-08. At least it's recent; I'll give him that.
[3] Win98? Revolutionary? Wow. When was that? 1898? Win95
wasn't too bad (and did improve that absolutely crazy DOS protocol
stack crud from a usage standpoint, if not from a reliability or
performance one) but I wouldn't call it "revolutionary".
[4] "I decided to purchase a large Red Hat manual".
But we have no idea what version of the CD. Did Red Hat
ever publish a ~1000 page manual?
[5] Wow. He lambastes it so specifically.
[6] "I literally have everything that I need and more
with Windows and OS X, so why throw something else into
the mix?" I'll concede that point, though admittedly
he's being vague again since "everything" isn't spelled
out here.
[7] How does one "feel unfortunate"?
[8] The OS is probably no easier to use than it was in 1995
or so -- whenever it got modules. The stuff around it of
course has improved markedly, and the OS itself has a lot
more modules in it -- to the point of becoming a little
bloated, at least as a tarball (41 MB *before* unpacking);
fortunately, one needn't build every module into the kernel,
or even build every module period.
But the kernel proper isn't that much easier to use; it
still requires int $0x80 on x86 boxes, an arcane calling
sequence that nobody but those slightly off their right
mind (like me!) would know how to even look for, let
alone use. But it doesn't matter; glibc has encapsulated
it since pretty much Linux's inception, making things more
portable and a lot easier on everybody. One might say the
kernel firewall's part of a machine that glibc spreads a
thin layer of oil, so that things slide easily. And then there
are higher level abstractions like C's portable library,
C++'s STL, Java's API, and Python.
(This shouldn't scare off anybody, but this is Yet Another
Multilayer Problem, and at least in Linux the layers can
be identified. Most people will point and click; many
will develop using C++/STL, Java, or Python libraries;
a fair number will be using C and the Portal Library;
a few might dabble in assembly. Computers are not toasters,
Steve Wozniak and/or Jobs notwithstanding.)
[9] I wonder what features Microsoft and Apple ripped off from Linux?
Gad.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
billwg
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
Microsoft and Apple ripped off from Linux?
>
> Gad.
>
>
Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
remains: "Why bother with linux?"
You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
JDS
> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
>
> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
Wha'? Obviously a troll, but how about, free applications, free OS, free
utilities, servers, and tools, free from viruses, spyware, and adware,
free from WGA, free from DRM, free to upgrade, free to downgrade, free to
tweak, twiddle, cajole, compile, and rearrange, free to do whatever you
want. Free to evangelize and promote its use. Free to not care if
others use it. Free as in beer. Free as in freedom.
Oh, and if you want to pay money for stuff, you can do that too. But you
never give up the freedom.
later, troll (boy|girl)
--
JDS
Kier
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JDS
> <jef...@invalid.address>
> wrote
> on Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:39:41 -0400
> <pan.2006.08.08....@invalid.address>:
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:54:42 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> http://osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=&task=view&id=2284
>>
>> What a shitty, pointless, rambling, useless article.
>
>
> [1] They can't even keep their styles straight for two pages?
> This is giving *me* vertigo. Or at least a mild headache.
>
> [2] Dated 2006-08-08. At least it's recent; I'll give him that.
>
> [3] Win98? Revolutionary? Wow. When was that? 1898? Win95
> wasn't too bad (and did improve that absolutely crazy DOS protocol
> stack crud from a usage standpoint, if not from a reliability or
> performance one) but I wouldn't call it "revolutionary".
That's probably why he put it in quotes himself :-)
>
> [4] "I decided to purchase a large Red Hat manual".
> But we have no idea what version of the CD. Did Red Hat
> ever publish a ~1000 page manual?
I don't know about a manual, but I purchased RedHat 9 Publishers edition
with the Red Hat 9 Linux Bible, and that is well over 1000 pages long (you
got three CDs instead of the more usual 2 of the download edition at of
the time). Granted this was probably a bit later, but it might have been
one of the RH Bible series.
--
Kier
Kier
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Microsoft and Apple ripped off from Linux?
>>
>> Gad.
>>
>>
>
> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
Because it's a good, stable alternaitve to Windows that doesn't cost an
arm and a leg, and doesn't force you into expensive upgrade cycles;
because it's interesting, challenging, fun... lots of reasons. Because
it's there. Because it's exciting. Be we want to.
>
> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
Tommyrot.
--
Kier
Oliver Wong
"JDS" <jef...@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.08....@invalid.address...
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:31:04 -0700, billwg wrote:
>
>> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
>> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
>>
>> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
>
> Wha'? Obviously a troll, but how about, free applications, free OS, free
> utilities, servers, and tools, free from viruses, spyware, and adware,
> free from WGA, free from DRM, free to upgrade, free to downgrade, free to
> tweak, twiddle, cajole, compile, and rearrange, free to do whatever you
> want. Free to evangelize and promote its use. Free to not care if
> others use it. Free as in beer. Free as in freedom.
I agree with most of these, but...
"free from DRM": I believe Linus said he plans to support DRM in Linux.
You are of course, free to not use DRM in Linux, but you are also free to
not use DRM in Windows.
"free to do whatever you want": Actually, no. Linux is licensed under
GPL, which places some restrictions on what you're allowed to do.
"Free to evangelize and promote its use": This isn't a benefit over the
alternatives.
"Free to not care if others use it": This is also not a benefit over the
alternatives.
- Oliver
The Ghost In The Machine
<bil...@alum.mit.edu>
wrote
on 8 Aug 2006 10:31:04 -0700
<1155058264.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Microsoft and Apple ripped off from Linux?
>>
>> Gad.
>>
>>
>
> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
What context did you want the answer in?
I happen to like UNIX(tm). Linux is very close to the
classical UNIX(tm) -- System 6, if you must know -- that
I cut my teeth on in college. Of course back then X was a
dream in some mad student's eye (it was released in 1985),
but one still had the command line, the C programming
language, and even a Tek4014 emulator as part of a VT100.
And of course it's free.
Now, as far as bothering, perhaps we should put the same
question to Microsoft: why bother with Linux? Answer:
because it is a threat to their very livelihood, the profit
structure that has better margins than Exxon-Mobil allowing
for 1/3 the profit on 1/10th the revenue.
Linux is a major threat to that.
>
> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
>
You're right, since you've yet to ask a sensible question.
Of course, there is the possibility that one might want
to evaluate Linux, since a company who has to serve its
customers via a website would at least want to take a look
at its cost structures once every 3 years or so instead of
auto-upgrading to Microsoft Windows Vista, Highly Expensive
Webserver Edition. (That'll come out sometime in 2009. :-) )
This evaluation might be little more than looking at various
IDC or other reports, of course;
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/analyses/ccw_tco.mspx
indicates for example that China Windows servers require lower TCO
than their Linux counterparts. In particular, one can save 41%
using Windows application/database servers.
In theory.
http://hashdot.com/Article719.html
also mentions the CCW report, and in particular indicates that the
higher TCO is because of a "weak application environment" and a shortage
of qualified engineers familiar with the environment. Therefore, Linux
managers are forced to spend more on support.
For its part IBM has an answer:
https://www.ibm.com/linux/whitepapers/robertFrancesGroupLinuxTCOAnalysis05.pdf
This is dated 1 year ago and is from the Robert Frances Group.
In this report Linux wins by an almost 40% margin. However, there is
one area where Linux is most expensive: Application Server Support and
Administration per Unit of Workload is where Linux clearly loses.
However, this is at most $4500 out of an about $27,410 difference.
This report is also making the rounds, as
http://linux.sys-con.com/read/124834.htm
makes references to the report according to Google.
It may be worth noting that the Microsoft/IDC report is 45 pages in length,
whereas the Robert Frances report is only 9. But this is only one
metric in a forest of confusion.
IBM is smart enough to say "it depends". And it does.
Of course you're asking about "bother", and I am answering with TCO.
This is probably not the answer you want. However, since "bother" is
such a bother to pin down I have no idea *what* you want, beyond
bothering us. :-P :-)
chrisv
The billwg has Linux's advantages explained countless times. His "you
never answer" is just a bald-faced lie.
billwg is a liar. billwg is a piece of shit.
JDS
> I don't know about a manual, but I purchased RedHat 9 Publishers edition
> with the Red Hat 9 Linux Bible, and that is well over 1000 pages long (you
> got three CDs instead of the more usual 2 of the download edition at of
> the time). Granted this was probably a bit later, but it might have been
> one of the RH Bible series.
My first foray into Linux was with a couple of different books that
provided, IIRC, Red Hat 5.x on cdrom. Each book was easily 750 pages.
We're talking phone books.
--
JDS
Kier
Most likely this si what the chap was talking about, then. My RH book is a
veritable doorstop :-)
--
Kier
Rick
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Microsoft and Apple ripped off from Linux?
>>
>> Gad.
>>
>>
>>
> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
First, it isn't a bother.
Second, it has pretty much all the software I want. Some I buy, some I
don't.
Third, it is easily customizable for me.
It is easy, at least for me, to install and maintain.
>
> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
... unless, of course, we do.
Rex Ballard
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Should I Really Care About Linux?
>
> ,----[ Final Words ]
> | ...while it's no secret that the OS (Linux) is easier to use and much more
> | robust than ever before, a lot of people just don't see a need to really
> | care about what's going on in the Penguin Land. Everyday users just go
> | with the majority,
That's usually true, until their machine gets hit with viruses,
spyware, and pop-ups, starts crashing, and some Microsoft security
update forces them to reboot their computer 8 times and then on of
their favorite 3rd party applications suddenly stops working.
It's those moments of frustration, when you want to take the big old
hammer to your PC, that you remember someone said "Linux is like
Windows, but it doesn't crash, it doesn't get sick, and it doesn't eat
spyware.
These days, there isn't a Linux advocate around who shouldn't be
watching those Mac ads and saying "I get that with Linux, and I didn't
have to spend $2000 for the computer to get it". It's really kind of
funny, the Mac ads are almost exactly like some proposed ads for Linux,
posted in this newsgroup over the last 10 years.
> | and it would take some drastic changes for most people
> | to seriously consider using Linux as a primary (or even secondary)
> | operating system.
Yes, like getting PERMSSION to do so. Like having an easy way to
repartition and/or reinstall windows on a Linux master.
VMWare appliances do solve many of these install problems. When you
can open VMX files like word files, and have a boat-load of
applications you didn't have before, that can be very nice.
> | Of course, it doesn't help that Microsoft and Apple
> | have ripped off some of the unique features of the OS and tried to make
> | them theirs, but that's a completely different story.
> `----
Actually, that IS the story. Vista now has 2 competitors. Apple,
which makes you buy their hardware, and Linux, which will run on your
Dell, HP, Thinkpad, Gateway, Toshiba, or Viao.
Vista **might** be out someday.
It ***might*** do ***some*** of what MAC does.
Do you really think that Dell, HP, Thinkpad, Gateway, and Toshiba are
going to let take bigger market shares than they have, and just sit
back and wait for VISTA??!!!
Microsoft doesn't have 10 years to "get it right" with VISTA.
Novell, Sun, Red Hat, and Linspire, are ALL talking to these big OEMs,
and they are pointing at Apple, saying "If You DON'Tgo Linux, Apple
will have 30% of the market and you'll be struggling to keep 10% at
fire-sale prices.
> http://osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=&task=view&id=2284
IBM invested $1 billion into Linux and got it back 10 fold within 3
years. Today, they make over $16 billion in revenue from services,
support, servers, consulting, and application licenses. Some
projections show this growing to $16 Billion per QUARTER, within a year
or so.
What could Dell, HP, and Lenovo do if they invested $1 billion in
promoting, selling, and supporting Linux workstations?
peterwn
Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> What could Dell, HP, and Lenovo do if they invested $1 billion in
> promoting, selling, and supporting Linux workstations?
In the short term, the payola from M$ for advertising "XXXX recommends
Microsoft Windows XP" is just too good to turn up their noses at, and
M$ can cut it off at the first sign of mutiny with no effective
comeback. This could drive the big OEM's into Chapter 11. I suspect
too that the Irish Republic is the biggest beneficiary of this as this
payola would be channelled through Irish subsidiaries at cheap
corporate tax rates, thus bilking the taxation systems of other nations.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:42:59 GMT,
Oliver Wong <ow...@castortech.com> wrote:
>
> "JDS" <jef...@invalid.address> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.08.08....@invalid.address...
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:31:04 -0700, billwg wrote:
>>
>>> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
>>> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
>>>
>>> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
>>
>> Wha'? Obviously a troll, but how about, free applications, free OS, free
>> utilities, servers, and tools, free from viruses, spyware, and adware,
>> free from WGA, free from DRM, free to upgrade, free to downgrade, free to
>> tweak, twiddle, cajole, compile, and rearrange, free to do whatever you
>> want. Free to evangelize and promote its use. Free to not care if
>> others use it. Free as in beer. Free as in freedom.
>
> I agree with most of these, but...
>
> "free from DRM": I believe Linus said he plans to support DRM in Linux.
> You are of course, free to not use DRM in Linux, but you are also free to
> not use DRM in Windows.
>
No, Linus said that Linux wouldn't be *blocking* people from adding DRM
hooks, not that he was planning on adding them,
> "free to do whatever you want": Actually, no. Linux is licensed under
> GPL, which places some restrictions on what you're allowed to do.
>
true, far less restrictions than under simple copyright, but it's far
from public domain, no matter what MS may think.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFE2P3rd90bcYOAWPYRArnPAJ9P30AVgVgSCbDGkUFQPLZjJtyeRQCeORAN
o4/t5HVIQP56mn4m7EfGvpI=
=JPoX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null
word.
-- Lazarus Long
billwg
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:sn5nq3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, billwg
> <bil...@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote
> on 8 Aug 2006 10:31:04 -0700
> <1155058264.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> Microsoft and Apple ripped off from Linux?
>>>
>>> Gad.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
>> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
>
> What context did you want the answer in?
>
the wonders of linux have been existent for quite a while now and next to
noone has actually adoped it as a desktop OS. Way under 1% of users from
all reports. So the question is: "Why?". The users do not recognize it as
worth having in spite of the technology quibbles presented again and again.
>
> And of course it's free.
>
> Now, as far as bothering, perhaps we should put the same
> question to Microsoft: why bother with Linux? Answer:
> because it is a threat to their very livelihood, the profit
> structure that has better margins than Exxon-Mobil allowing
> for 1/3 the profit on 1/10th the revenue.
>
> Linux is a major threat to that.
>
It hasn't cut into their slice yet, ghost. I think that it is more like the
Kazaa thing with music. The people doing it love it, but they wouldn't buy
the record if it wasn't free. The linux hobbyist/user uses linux and loves
it, but they would just use their old Windows OS if it wasn't around.
Microsoft would not be any richer in either case.
>>
>> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
>>
>
> You're right, since you've yet to ask a sensible question.
> Of course, there is the possibility that one might want
> to evaluate Linux, since a company who has to serve its
> customers via a website would at least want to take a look
> at its cost structures once every 3 years or so instead of
> auto-upgrading to Microsoft Windows Vista, Highly Expensive
> Webserver Edition. (That'll come out sometime in 2009. :-) )
>
Well it is lower in price than Red Hat, ghost! Most commercial companies do
not want to fuss with the home-made distros and want some kind of
organization behind ensuring that things advance.
> This evaluation might be little more than looking at various
> IDC or other reports, of course;
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/analyses/ccw_tco.mspx
> indicates for example that China Windows servers require lower TCO
> than their Linux counterparts. In particular, one can save 41%
> using Windows application/database servers.
>
Servers, servers, servers, ghost! Linux is a replacement for unix to some
extent there. But what about the desktop? That is the question.
billwg
"JDS" <jef...@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.08....@invalid.address...
>
>> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
>> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
>>
>> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
>
> Wha'? Obviously a troll, but how about, free applications, free OS, free
> utilities, servers, and tools, free from viruses, spyware, and adware,
> free from WGA, free from DRM, free to upgrade, free to downgrade, free to
> tweak, twiddle, cajole, compile, and rearrange, free to do whatever you
> want. Free to evangelize and promote its use. Free to not care if
> others use it. Free as in beer. Free as in freedom.
>
and talk, but the stuff that comes out of OSS is frequently rather crude
compared to the commercial stuff and it shows. Sure you can get it for
free. No one would pay for it.
WGA and DRM are only threats to people who are not willing or able to pay
and there are as many or more hobbyists using Windows to play around as are
using linux. It's a lot easier to create applications for Windows.
The Ghost In The Machine
<bil...@microsoft.com>
wrote
on Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:27:51 GMT
<Hd8Cg.10437$9.7...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
[snip irrelevance]
> Servers, servers, servers, ghost! Linux is a replacement for unix to some
> extent there. But what about the desktop? That is the question.
>
AFAIK no studies have been done regarding TCO on the desktop.
Windows TCO is probably lower, however, if one believes the IDC numbers,
and higher if one believes the Robert (IBM) numbers.
JDS
> So do you think that very many buyers actually believe that? You folk talk
> and talk, but the stuff that comes out of OSS is frequently rather crude
> compared to the commercial stuff and it shows. Sure you can get it for
> free. No one would pay for it.
Ugh.
--
JDS | jef...@go.away.com
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
Kier
>
> "JDS" <jef...@invalid.address> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.08.08....@invalid.address...
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:31:04 -0700, billwg wrote:
>>
>>> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
>>> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
>>>
>>> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
>>
>> Wha'? Obviously a troll, but how about, free applications, free OS, free
>> utilities, servers, and tools, free from viruses, spyware, and adware,
>> free from WGA, free from DRM, free to upgrade, free to downgrade, free to
>> tweak, twiddle, cajole, compile, and rearrange, free to do whatever you
>> want. Free to evangelize and promote its use. Free to not care if
>> others use it. Free as in beer. Free as in freedom.
>>
> So do you think that very many buyers actually believe that? You folk talk
> and talk, but the stuff that comes out of OSS is frequently rather crude
> compared to the commercial stuff and it shows. Sure you can get it for
> free. No one would pay for it.
Many do, when they buy a commercial distro. The software in them is almost
always the same stuff you'll get in a free download. So that blows your
silly argument away at once.
>
> WGA and DRM are only threats to people who are not willing or able to pay
Bullshit. Neither one is acceptable.
> and there are as many or more hobbyists using Windows to play around as are
> using linux. It's a lot easier to create applications for Windows.
Again, bullshit. Easier to creat apps for Windows? When in Linux
everything is open, there to be examined, so that you can build on the
work of others and improve it if you want, learn from it? With free tools,
right there is the distro? Gah! you're ridiculous.
--
Kier
Oliver Wong
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.09...@tiscali.co.uk...
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:32:35 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>> WGA and DRM are only threats to people who are not willing or able to pay
>
> Bullshit. Neither one is acceptable.
I think DRM has some "whitehat" applications that are "acceptable". When
a company asks you for personal information, you could give it to them in
DRM form, thus preventing them from sharing it with third parties, for
example.
>
>> and there are as many or more hobbyists using Windows to play around as
>> are
>> using linux. It's a lot easier to create applications for Windows.
>
> Again, bullshit. Easier to creat apps for Windows? When in Linux
> everything is open, there to be examined, so that you can build on the
> work of others and improve it if you want, learn from it? With free tools,
> right there is the distro? Gah! you're ridiculous.
To be fair, I think it's a lot easier (in the sense of "lower barrier to
entry") to create an application using Visual Basic than, say, C or Python.
Just look at the near infinite supply of crappy VB programs as evidence!
- Oliver
Ray Ingles
>> Wha'? Obviously a troll, but how about, free applications, free OS, free
>> utilities, servers, and tools, free from viruses, spyware, and adware,
>> free from WGA, free from DRM, free to upgrade, free to downgrade, free to
>> tweak, twiddle, cajole, compile, and rearrange, free to do whatever you
>> want. Free to evangelize and promote its use. Free to not care if
>> others use it. Free as in beer. Free as in freedom.
>>
> So do you think that very many buyers actually believe that?
Not yet; the battle for the desktop's just getting started, really.
Several factors are combining to drive this. Each of them would be
insufficient in themselves to drive change, but together they alter the
climate markedly.
First, developers are putting time and money into developing seriously
polished Linux desktops. The rate of improvement here is dramatic;
already Linux desktops like Ubuntu and Suse have the features that MS is
promising might one day ship with Vista, if they aren't removed before
that. And many of the Linux versions are *more* polished. Compare sudo
with LUA, I mean UAP (they can't even keep the name straight).
Second, more and more cross-platform apps are appearing, and their use
is spreading dramatically. Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, etc. Once
people are using these on Windows, the transition to Linux is *much*
simpler. Hardware based on open standards (USB, anyone?) is also
increasingly the norm rather than the exception. Even in the areas of
largely proprietary hardware (graphics cards, wifi chipsets) the support
is already good and getting perceptibly better by the month. (In this
context, *any* improvement in Mac's position (and there's evidence for
that) benefits Linux, simply by making alternatives practical.)
Third, the userbase is far more accustomed to working with varieties of
technologies and interfaces than even a couple years ago. Cell phones,
mp3 players, game consoles, even TVs these days. They all have their own
interfaces and kids (and twentysomethings) have no trouble working with
them. The "cost" of learning another GUI is lower now than it's ever
been, and still dropping. Particularly when the interface is quite close
to ones they already know.
Fourth, security issues with Windows are becoming more and more
prevalent. The approaches MS uses to fight them are simply not effective
and malware, trojans, etc. have financial motivations now. You've
claimed in the past that consumers trust Microsoft to fix these
problems, but I haven't seen any evidence of that - quite the opposite?
Remember that survey that came out a few months back that had MS in the
bottom three of companies in terms of brand trust?
Fifth, DRM really is becoming more of an issue. My nephew wanted to
convert some mp3s into wma format so he could play them on his phone;
turned out to be rather more complex and/or expensive than he'd thought.
Sixth, there's economic considerations. MS is coming under increasing
price pressure - in an industry (PCs) where price is a major
differentiator, the price of MS OSs has not gone down in proportion to
the other system costs - it's now a major contributor to the price of a
PC - in some cases the single largest cost. It's already been documented
that MS is feeling this - you can deep discounts, all the way to free in
some cases, by mentioning 'Linux' when negotiating with them.
Again, taken individually they wouldn't motivate a switch to Linux.
Taken together, though, I rather expect a gradual adoption of Linux
desktops in the consumer space. Particularly since *all* of these
factors are more sharply felt in the corporate space, I expect consumers
to get exposed to Linux at work, and adopt it at home. (Once this
develops more, there will be advertising campaigns and so forth, too.
It's already happening - Dell's TV ads talk about Linux on their
servers.)
I don't expect MS to go out of business, just to become much less
dominant over time, not unlike IBM did.
> You folk talk
> and talk, but the stuff that comes out of OSS is frequently rather crude
> compared to the commercial stuff and it shows. Sure you can get it for
> free. No one would pay for it.
Irrelevant. No one's claiming people will switch for 'crap'; they'll
switch for the *good* apps/features/eyecandy, of which there's plenty in
the Linux space. It's not like there isn't a huge flood of 'crude stuff'
for Windows, y'know. Are you saying that *all* the Windows software
available at, say, download.com is of uniformly excellent quality?
> WGA and DRM are only threats to people who are not willing or able to
> pay
Yeah, right, never a false positive there...
> It's a lot easier to create applications for Windows.
Not in my experience, but maybe that would explain the stuff on
download.com... :->
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Look, you can't 'show' someone why the fish slapping dance is funny.
A person either appreciates it, or not all, on a totally fundamental
level and you can't change someone in that kind of way." - Nermal
Kier
>
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.08.09...@tiscali.co.uk...
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:32:35 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>
>>> WGA and DRM are only threats to people who are not willing or able to pay
>>
>> Bullshit. Neither one is acceptable.
>
> I think DRM has some "whitehat" applications that are "acceptable". When
> a company asks you for personal information, you could give it to them in
> DRM form, thus preventing them from sharing it with third parties, for
> example.
They shouldn't be sharing it away, but then, nor should file-sharers, so I
suppose you could say this application of DRM is acceptable, maybe. But
it's really a different issue. But IMO, the whole concept of DRM is
flawed, since its standpoint is that you are a thief no matter what.
>
>>
>>> and there are as many or more hobbyists using Windows to play around as
>>> are
>>> using linux. It's a lot easier to create applications for Windows.
>>
>> Again, bullshit. Easier to creat apps for Windows? When in Linux
>> everything is open, there to be examined, so that you can build on the
>> work of others and improve it if you want, learn from it? With free tools,
>> right there is the distro? Gah! you're ridiculous.
>
> To be fair, I think it's a lot easier (in the sense of "lower barrier to
> entry") to create an application using Visual Basic than, say, C or Python.
> Just look at the near infinite supply of crappy VB programs as evidence!
Maybe. Or maybe VB just makes it easy to produce crap code :-)
Still, I take your meaning.
--
Kier
DFS
> Just look at the near infinite supply of crappy VB programs as evidence!
Not that you could ever point any out crappy VB programs (except maybe your
own)...
Linonut
There's plenty of crap code out there, no matter what the language. It
is far easier to write crap code than good code!
--
"Take her in for regrooving." -- The Firesign Theatre
Chris Dunaway
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > Should I Really Care About Linux?
> >
> > ,----[ Final Words ]
> > | ...while it's no secret that the OS (Linux) is easier to use and much more
> > | robust than ever before, a lot of people just don't see a need to really
> > | care about what's going on in the Penguin Land. Everyday users just go
> > | with the majority,
>
> That's usually true, until their machine gets hit with viruses,
> spyware, and pop-ups, starts crashing, and some Microsoft security
> update forces them to reboot their computer 8 times and then on of
> their favorite 3rd party applications suddenly stops working.
>
> It's those moments of frustration, when you want to take the big old
> hammer to your PC, that you remember someone said "Linux is like
> Windows, but it doesn't crash, it doesn't get sick, and it doesn't eat
> spyware.
How many Windows users even know someone who advocates Linux?
>
> These days, there isn't a Linux advocate around who shouldn't be
> watching those Mac ads and saying "I get that with Linux, and I didn't
> have to spend $2000 for the computer to get it". It's really kind of
> funny, the Mac ads are almost exactly like some proposed ads for Linux,
> posted in this newsgroup over the last 10 years.
>
The question is, where are those ads and who is going to pay for them?
I can turn on the TV and find ads for Windows and Mac, but I have NEVER
seen a commerical for any form of Linux! I see IBM commercials, but
they don't specifically mention Linux. I don't watch a lot of TV so
perhaps I missed them.
I see that as a big problem. How can people switch to Linux when they
don't even know it exists? And once MS gets all the security issues
off of the front page headlines, people will quickly forget and fall
back into their complacency.
> Actually, that IS the story. Vista now has 2 competitors. Apple,
> which makes you buy their hardware, and Linux, which will run on your
> Dell, HP, Thinkpad, Gateway, Toshiba, or Viao.
But will Linux run the newest, high profile games? Games which require
ever increasing video card requirements? Video cards which have no
drivers for Linux? That is another problem that must be overcome.
When the next great game comes out, it is certain that it will be
availble for Windows, it *might* be available for Mac, and probably
not for Linux.
And now that the next version of Direct3D will be the same for Windows
Vista and XBox 360, what incentive will big game software houses have
to include things like OpenGL in their games? And even if they did, on
Vista, OpenGL is intentionally crippled as I understand.
Can Linux run the newest and greatest games? If you're not an avid
gamer, then this doesn't affect you, but a large number of people buy a
PC to play games on.
Just another hurdle to be jumped.
I'm very curious to see how it will turn out.
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>
>>> Just look at the near infinite supply of crappy VB programs as
>>> evidence!
>>
>> Not that you could ever point any out crappy VB programs (except
>> maybe your own)...
>
> There's plenty of crap code out there, no matter what the language.
> It is far easier to write crap code than good code!
When you say it that way, I have to agree. It's the ignorant "all VB
programs are crappy" attitude of cola/Linux nuts that irks me.
Richard Rasker
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>
>>> Just look at the near infinite supply of crappy VB programs as evidence!
>>
>> Not that you could ever point any out crappy VB programs (except maybe your
>> own)...
>
> There's plenty of crap code out there, no matter what the language. It
> is far easier to write crap code than good code!
This especially rings true if you want/need to get stuff to market as fast
as possible, which is the case with lots of proprietary software vendors,
as opposed to OS software makers ...
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
Kier
> Rex Ballard wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> > Should I Really Care About Linux?
>> >
>> > ,----[ Final Words ]
>> > | ...while it's no secret that the OS (Linux) is easier to use and much more
>> > | robust than ever before, a lot of people just don't see a need to really
>> > | care about what's going on in the Penguin Land. Everyday users just go
>> > | with the majority,
>>
>> That's usually true, until their machine gets hit with viruses,
>> spyware, and pop-ups, starts crashing, and some Microsoft security
>> update forces them to reboot their computer 8 times and then on of
>> their favorite 3rd party applications suddenly stops working.
>>
>> It's those moments of frustration, when you want to take the big old
>> hammer to your PC, that you remember someone said "Linux is like
>> Windows, but it doesn't crash, it doesn't get sick, and it doesn't eat
>> spyware.
>
> How many Windows users even know someone who advocates Linux?
We're small in number but growing. Besides myself I know of a few people
who either use or have heard of Linux, most of them in my small home town.
>
>>
>> These days, there isn't a Linux advocate around who shouldn't be
>> watching those Mac ads and saying "I get that with Linux, and I didn't
>> have to spend $2000 for the computer to get it". It's really kind of
>> funny, the Mac ads are almost exactly like some proposed ads for Linux,
>> posted in this newsgroup over the last 10 years.
>>
>
> The question is, where are those ads and who is going to pay for them?
A pity SUSE doesn't try for some ads, they're a big, commercial distro,
and ought to have funds spare. It would surely be of some benefit to them.
> I can turn on the TV and find ads for Windows and Mac, but I have NEVER
> seen a commerical for any form of Linux! I see IBM commercials, but
> they don't specifically mention Linux. I don't watch a lot of TV so
> perhaps I missed them.
Probably not. I've never seen any either. We certainly would benefit from
some.
>
> I see that as a big problem. How can people switch to Linux when they
> don't even know it exists? And once MS gets all the security issues
> off of the front page headlines, people will quickly forget and fall
> back into their complacency.
But MS never seems to get its act together regarding security.
>
>> Actually, that IS the story. Vista now has 2 competitors. Apple,
>> which makes you buy their hardware, and Linux, which will run on your
>> Dell, HP, Thinkpad, Gateway, Toshiba, or Viao.
>
> But will Linux run the newest, high profile games? Games which require
> ever increasing video card requirements? Video cards which have no
> drivers for Linux? That is another problem that must be overcome.
Only for gamers. And if more people begin to use Linux, there'll be more
chance of the problem being overcome. It won't happen overnight, obviously.
> When the next great game comes out, it is certain that it will be
> availble for Windows, it *might* be available for Mac, and probably
> not for Linux.
Possibly. That *could* change. It may not for some time, but it's not
impossible.
>
> And now that the next version of Direct3D will be the same for Windows
> Vista and XBox 360, what incentive will big game software houses have
> to include things like OpenGL in their games? And even if they did, on
> Vista, OpenGL is intentionally crippled as I understand.
>
> Can Linux run the newest and greatest games? If you're not an avid
> gamer, then this doesn't affect you, but a large number of people buy a
> PC to play games on.
Which they will probably still do. In all honesty I don't see Linux
becoming a great gaming platform. It's better at other tasks, and that's
what should be concentrated on: getting it out there as a great desktop
OS.
>
> Just another hurdle to be jumped.
>
> I'm very curious to see how it will turn out.
Me too. I very much hope the situation changes for the better.
--
Kier
DFS
> Op Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:29:45 -0500, schreef Linonut:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just look at the near infinite supply of crappy VB programs as
>>>> evidence!
>>>
>>> Not that you could ever point any out crappy VB programs (except
>>> maybe your own)...
>>
>> There's plenty of crap code out there, no matter what the language.
>> It is far easier to write crap code than good code!
>
> This especially rings true if you want/need to get stuff to market as
> fast as possible, which is the case with lots of proprietary software
> vendors, as opposed to OS software makers ...
That's a joke, right? Linux/OSS distributes "get it out there quick because
it's new" code and technologies and apps ALL THE TIME. Xen and Xgl are the
latest immature technologies trumpeted by Linux/OSS vendors, and shipped
with distros long before they should be.
OpenOffice Base, a major component of one of the most popular open source
apps, isn't nearly ready for the public (it's questionable that a
slow-monstrosity like OO is itself ready).
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>
>> There's plenty of crap code out there, no matter what the language.
>> It is far easier to write crap code than good code!
>
> When you say it that way, I have to agree. It's the ignorant "all VB
> programs are crappy" attitude of cola/Linux nuts that irks me.
We have a big-ass (well, wealthy at least) company here, called
BlackBaud.
As I understand it, most of their stuff is written in VB.
The software is viewed as somewhat problematic, but I think that may
well be a matter of "Eff the testing! Get it out the door now!"
--
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;
teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
Linonut
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>
>>> There's plenty of crap code out there, no matter what the language.
>>> It is far easier to write crap code than good code!
>>
>> This especially rings true if you want/need to get stuff to market as
>> fast as possible, which is the case with lots of proprietary software
>> vendors, as opposed to OS software makers ...
>
> That's a joke, right? Linux/OSS distributes "get it out there quick because
> it's new" code and technologies and apps ALL THE TIME. Xen and Xgl are the
> latest immature technologies trumpeted by Linux/OSS vendors, and shipped
> with distros long before they should be.
On the other hand, though, with OSS you generally get faster fixes and
updates.
And, if the programmer is prideful, he/she will comb through the code
relentlessly, long after it "just works". There's no real
time-pressure once it "just works".
> OpenOffice Base, a major component of one of the most popular open source
> apps, isn't nearly ready for the public (it's questionable that a
> slow-monstrosity like OO is itself ready).
Actually, I think OO is pretty decent, for a Java-based app.
--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me
than a frontal lobotomy.
billwg
> always the same stuff you'll get in a free download. So that blows your
> silly argument away at once.
>
software. You have to pay more attention to your party line, kier!
>>
>> WGA and DRM are only threats to people who are not willing or able to pay
>
> Bullshit. Neither one is acceptable.
>
>> and there are as many or more hobbyists using Windows to play around as
>> are
>> using linux. It's a lot easier to create applications for Windows.
>
> Again, bullshit. Easier to creat apps for Windows? When in Linux
> everything is open, there to be examined, so that you can build on the
> work of others and improve it if you want, learn from it? With free tools,
> right there is the distro? Gah! you're ridiculous.
>
Ah, kier, you are not being very innovative, eh? What do you design? It's
a lot more satisfying to start from scratch and build something unique. As
to sample software, I think there is a lot more available overall for
Windows than for linux. Virtually everything available for linux is also
available for Windows and then there is the Windows stuff that is not
available to linux.
billwg
"Oliver Wong" <ow...@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:4kmCg.142814$A8.115214@clgrps12...
>
>
> To be fair, I think it's a lot easier (in the sense of "lower barrier
> to entry") to create an application using Visual Basic than, say, C or
> Python. Just look at the near infinite supply of crappy VB programs as
> evidence!
>
them any better. Look at a random SourceForge project to see that. Most
people can't play the violin either, even if it were a Stradivarius.
arachnid
> ... and then there is the Windows stuff that is not available to linux.
Why would Linux users want viruses, spyware, trojans, adware, WPA, DRM,
and WGA?
DFS
> And, if the [OSS] programmer is prideful, he/she will comb through the
> code
> relentlessly, long after it "just works". There's no real
> time-pressure once it "just works".
I think they're plenty prideful; some just don't like to make the serious
effort required to make their apps user-friendly and well-documented.
(truth is, maybe something as complicated as Xen can't be made
user-friendly)
>> OpenOffice Base, a major component of one of the most popular open
>> source apps, isn't nearly ready for the public (it's questionable
>> that a slow-monstrosity like OO is itself ready).
>
> Actually, I think OO is pretty decent, for a Java-based app.
It's written in C++, but has a few Java components. Don't know why it's so
slow at everything, though. Even though they got the load time down to a
few seconds, working with it (with Calc anyway) is frustrating compared to
using a snappy program like MS Office (Excel).
billwg
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, billwg
> <bil...@microsoft.com>
> wrote
> on Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:27:51 GMT
> <Hd8Cg.10437$9.7...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>>
>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
a while and has been pretty capable for quite a while and the individual
consumer does not care one whit. Why is that?
>> Servers, servers, servers, ghost! Linux is a replacement for unix to
>> some
>> extent there. But what about the desktop? That is the question.
>>
>
> AFAIK no studies have been done regarding TCO on the desktop.
> Windows TCO is probably lower, however, if one believes the IDC numbers,
> and higher if one believes the Robert (IBM) numbers.
>
No one buys many machines with linux pre-installed for the desktop, ghost.
Wal-Mart has tried to sell them, but they don't seem to be enough of a
roaring success to raise Microtel's profits or Wal-Mart's. No one seems to
be hopping on the bandwagon even years after the initial attempts.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrnedk88v....@localhost.localdomain...
> On 2006-08-08, billwg <bil...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> Wha'? Obviously a troll, but how about, free applications, free OS, free
>>> utilities, servers, and tools, free from viruses, spyware, and adware,
>>> free from WGA, free from DRM, free to upgrade, free to downgrade, free
>>> to
>>> tweak, twiddle, cajole, compile, and rearrange, free to do whatever you
>>> want. Free to evangelize and promote its use. Free to not care if
>>> others use it. Free as in beer. Free as in freedom.
>>>
>> So do you think that very many buyers actually believe that?
>
> Not yet; the battle for the desktop's just getting started, really.
> Several factors are combining to drive this. Each of them would be
> insufficient in themselves to drive change, but together they alter the
> climate markedly.
>
> First, developers are putting time and money into developing seriously
> polished Linux desktops. The rate of improvement here is dramatic;
> already Linux desktops like Ubuntu and Suse have the features that MS is
> promising might one day ship with Vista, if they aren't removed before
> that. And many of the Linux versions are *more* polished. Compare sudo
> with LUA, I mean UAP (they can't even keep the name straight).
>
change look and feel and everyone adopts it because it is Windows. The
chumps you reference do not lead the market, they are not even on the radar.
> Second, more and more cross-platform apps are appearing, and their use
> is spreading dramatically. Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, etc. Once
> people are using these on Windows, the transition to Linux is *much*
> simpler. Hardware based on open standards (USB, anyone?) is also
> increasingly the norm rather than the exception. Even in the areas of
> largely proprietary hardware (graphics cards, wifi chipsets) the support
> is already good and getting perceptibly better by the month. (In this
> context, *any* improvement in Mac's position (and there's evidence for
> that) benefits Linux, simply by making alternatives practical.)
>
"Cross-platform"??? That is silly. What usage there is of these apps is
far and away on Windows.
> Third, the userbase is far more accustomed to working with varieties of
> technologies and interfaces than even a couple years ago. Cell phones,
> mp3 players, game consoles, even TVs these days. They all have their own
> interfaces and kids (and twentysomethings) have no trouble working with
> them. The "cost" of learning another GUI is lower now than it's ever
> been, and still dropping. Particularly when the interface is quite close
> to ones they already know.
>
You make a fundament mistake in comparing a desktop computer to a cell
phone, ray. There is no effect from one to the other in terms of consumer
perceptions.
> Fourth, security issues with Windows are becoming more and more
> prevalent. The approaches MS uses to fight them are simply not effective
> and malware, trojans, etc. have financial motivations now. You've
> claimed in the past that consumers trust Microsoft to fix these
> problems, but I haven't seen any evidence of that - quite the opposite?
> Remember that survey that came out a few months back that had MS in the
> bottom three of companies in terms of brand trust?
>
I think that you are ignoring reality here, ray. For one thing, the common
perception is that Windows is getting less and less susceptible to viruses
and malware. What the last big scare that you can remember? Not much in
the public eye these days. You read too much COLA tripe.
> Fifth, DRM really is becoming more of an issue. My nephew wanted to
> convert some mp3s into wma format so he could play them on his phone;
> turned out to be rather more complex and/or expensive than he'd thought.
>
Use Plato. No problem at all.
> Sixth, there's economic considerations. MS is coming under increasing
> price pressure - in an industry (PCs) where price is a major
> differentiator, the price of MS OSs has not gone down in proportion to
> the other system costs - it's now a major contributor to the price of a
> PC - in some cases the single largest cost. It's already been documented
> that MS is feeling this - you can deep discounts, all the way to free in
> some cases, by mentioning 'Linux' when negotiating with them.
>
You see that as a positive for linux? Think about it!
> Again, taken individually they wouldn't motivate a switch to Linux.
> Taken together, though, I rather expect a gradual adoption of Linux
> desktops in the consumer space. Particularly since *all* of these
> factors are more sharply felt in the corporate space, I expect consumers
> to get exposed to Linux at work, and adopt it at home. (Once this
> develops more, there will be advertising campaigns and so forth, too.
> It's already happening - Dell's TV ads talk about Linux on their
> servers.)
>
And Dell is taking a lot out of the unix suppliers private preserve, ray.
Linux is seen as a generic unix and unix developers haven't moved forward in
quite a while. It is a sign of stagnation in the unix arena, IMO, and
Windows can only profit from that. The linux mimics are now reduced to
copying Windows initiatives and GUI look and feel.
> I don't expect MS to go out of business, just to become much less
> dominant over time, not unlike IBM did.
>
IBM is pretty dominant today, ray. Certainly they are not on the ropes.
>> You folk talk
>> and talk, but the stuff that comes out of OSS is frequently rather crude
>> compared to the commercial stuff and it shows. Sure you can get it for
>> free. No one would pay for it.
>
> Irrelevant. No one's claiming people will switch for 'crap'; they'll
> switch for the *good* apps/features/eyecandy, of which there's plenty in
> the Linux space. It's not like there isn't a huge flood of 'crude stuff'
> for Windows, y'know. Are you saying that *all* the Windows software
> available at, say, download.com is of uniformly excellent quality?
>
You imagine a lot, ray. What is the most significant application that you
can think of that is not also available for Windows?
>> WGA and DRM are only threats to people who are not willing or able to
>> pay
>
> Yeah, right, never a false positive there...
>
Have you ever seen one?
>> It's a lot easier to create applications for Windows.
>
> Not in my experience, but maybe that would explain the stuff on
> download.com... :->
>
Just what is your experience? In general terms, of course.
billwg
Oliver Wong
"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message
news:fQsCg.5866$Uq1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
The ratio of crappy programs to non-crappy programs written in a given
language is directly inversely proportional to the barrier-to-entry, I
think. The theory behind this is that if your programming language has a
very low barrier to entry, you're less likely to need formal training to
actually make something executable using that programming language. And the
less likely you need formal training, the more people without formal
training are going to get involved in making something executable.
It's a similar situation with PHP, for example. PHP makes it easy to
write web apps. Very easy. So easy, in fact, that I managed to learn PHP by
myself and write a web app whiched eventually peaked at over 3000 users. At
the time, I had no idea what SQL injection attacks were. Oops.
Contrast that with, say, J2EE, where you'd probably have to take a
course or two to figure out how to get anything beyond "Hello World"
working. During that course, your instructor would have probably mentioned
SQL injection to you.
There's a lot of great PHP apps out there. Perhaps many of them are
better than the best J2EE apps. But there's also a lot of poorly written PHP
apps. And I think the ratio of good apps to bad apps is much worse in PHP
than it is in J2EE, because of the minimum competency level that the barrier
to entry enforces.
- Oliver
Oliver Wong
The OP has a point in that there exists some nice apps for Windows of
which I haven't found equivalents in Linux. E.g. Reason
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_%28program%29
- Oliver
billwg
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:31:04 -0700, billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> Microsoft and Apple ripped off from Linux?
>>>
>>> Gad.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
>> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
>
> arm and a leg, and doesn't force you into expensive upgrade cycles;
> because it's interesting, challenging, fun... lots of reasons. Because
> it's there. Because it's exciting. Be we want to.
>
But is it any reason to change? Almost no one thinks so, kier. You need to
focus on the issue.
>>
>> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
>
> Tommyrot.
>
Is that your idea of an answer? Welcome to COLA! LOL!!!
billwg
Certainly not enough of them to affect the course of desktop platform
commerce.
As to viruses, spyware, trojans, and adware, these are the substances of
sick minds or else non-caring and not so intelligent vendors of questionable
products and are not intrinsically limited to Windows. They may seem to be
limited to Windows since Windows provides a lot of the user features that
are needed to support their proliferation, but anything that allows the
general population to send something useful also allows these malcontents
the means to send something harmful or other wise undesirable. You will get
just as much email spam with a linux mail reader as with Outlook.
If you are a penniless waif who cannot afford to contribute to the common
weal, you may oppose WPA, DRM, and even WGA on the grounds that it may make
your ability to pooch off someone else's stuff much harder to come by, but,
for the normal user, it poses no problem. Enough music has alread been
translated to MP3 to make DRM ineffective for those who truly want to get it
for free and sites with WPA protection are catering to their own users. WGA
is only intended to catch commercial pirates and doesn't affect regular
people at all.
Linonut
>>> OpenOffice Base, a major component of one of the most popular open
>>> source apps, isn't nearly ready for the public (it's questionable
>>> that a slow-monstrosity like OO is itself ready).
>>
>> Actually, I think OO is pretty decent, for a Java-based app.
>
> It's written in C++, but has a few Java components. Don't know why it's so
> slow at everything, though. Even though they got the load time down to a
> few seconds, working with it (with Calc anyway) is frustrating compared to
> using a snappy program like MS Office (Excel).
I wouldn't characterize Word, or even Excel as "snappy".
(Same for abiword, gnumeric, and all the OO2 apps, too, though.)
That's one reason I generally prefer ASCII text -- you can use faster
tools on it.
Well, just went to DELL and got copies of all the Win2000/XP drivers for
my laptop. Hope to finally get rid of XP. I'm sick of it. Since I
must use Windows, I'll downgrade to 2000.
--
Microslave: You aren't going anywhere today!
Linonut
replonk.
--
Boot your Windows operating system in a virtual machine on Linux
It's safer.
-- http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/
arachnid
For me it's icewm. I miss it every time I have to sit there waiting on
MS-Windows to finally reach the point where I can *do* something.
arachnid
>
> "arachnid" <nos...@goawayspammer.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.08.10....@goawayspammer.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:49:21 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>> ... and then there is the Windows stuff that is not available to linux.
>>
>> Why would Linux users want viruses, spyware, trojans, adware, WPA, DRM,
>> and WGA?
>>
> You act as if there were very many linux users to begin with, spiderman!
> Certainly not enough of them to affect the course of desktop platform
> commerce.
LOL! Nobody's as easy to troll, as a troll.
Oliver Wong
This is a big deal breaker for a lot of people I know (myself included).
Dual booting is unattractive, as many of us have background tasks running
while playing (e.g. IM clients, bittorrent, etc.) If we go the
virtualization, we'd run Windows as core, and virtualize Linux, because we
don't want the virtualization to remove hardware acceleration from the game.
Obviously, virtualizing Linux on Windows defeats many of the benefits of
running Linux in the first place.
- Oliver
arachnid
> Well, just went to DELL and got copies of all the Win2000/XP drivers for
> my laptop. Hope to finally get rid of XP. I'm sick of it. Since I
> must use Windows, I'll downgrade to 2000.
s/downgrade/upgrade/
The Ghost In The Machine
<F1ICg.13533$9.8...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:okinq3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, billwg
>> <bil...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:27:51 GMT
>> <Hd8Cg.10437$9.7...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>>>
>>
>> [snip irrelevance]
>>
> Well it was relevant to the thread, ghost. Linux has been around for quite
> a while and has been pretty capable for quite a while and the individual
Capable? Pretty? Many trolls would claim otherwise.
- Capability: For its power, flexibility, and elegance, Linux has
yet to crack the desktop market. It's seeped into some spots,
of course, but that's about it.
- Pretty: Ugly fonts are still an issue, if certain reports are to be
believed. (Personally, I think it's no longer an issue, though it
was at one point, yielding blocky, 1980's-era graphic-evoking fonts.
But that was way back in the 1990's.)
> consumer does not care one whit. Why is that?
Because the consumer desires Windows, of course. It's the only
thing he knows, and he hangs on to every word Microsoft says
with bated breath.
>
>>> Servers, servers, servers, ghost! Linux is a replacement for unix to
>>> some extent there.
For most extent here. Sun is suffering. IBM has already capitulated on
AIX. I don't know what HP is doing but I doubt HP/UX has that much of a
future.
>>> But what about the desktop? That is the question.
What about it? At some point Microsoft is going to have to reenter the
server market. (How, I'm not sure.) It will then leverage its
dominance in the desktop market to get everyone to install Windows
Server Edition.
Again.
(Maybe this time they'll get it right.)
As it is, Microsoft will dominate the desktop market until someone gets
the bright idea of offering high-end Linux boxes, low-end Linux boxes,
and mid-end Linux boxes alongside the high-end Windows boxes, low-end
Windows boxes, and mid-end Windws boxes -- for a *lower* price with the
exact *same* configuration.
And even then, most people will pick Windows. Why? Because that's what
they know.
>>>
>>
>> AFAIK no studies have been done regarding TCO on the desktop.
>> Windows TCO is probably lower, however, if one believes the IDC numbers,
>> and higher if one believes the Robert (IBM) numbers.
>>
> No one buys many machines with linux pre-installed for the desktop, ghost.
> Wal-Mart has tried to sell them, but they don't seem to be enough of a
> roaring success to raise Microtel's profits or Wal-Mart's. No one seems to
> be hopping on the bandwagon even years after the initial attempts.
>
Exactly. We're all waiting for Windows Vista, The OS That
Will Fix Everything(tm). Windows Vista will be the most
secure Windows solution on the desktop.
Ever.
This will excite people. This will make them want Vista. This
will cause them to queue up about a year from now clamoring for
Vista at 2 in the morning. Even with Vista's rather big hardware
requirements.
Me, I prefer sleeping in. :-) Especially since the only box I have that
might even contemplate running Vista already is running Linux, and
there's no real space for it. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Kier
>
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.08.09...@tiscali.co.uk...
>>
>> Many do, when they buy a commercial distro. The software in them is almost
>> always the same stuff you'll get in a free download. So that blows your
>> silly argument away at once.
>>
> Well according to the linux mantra, that payment is for support, not
> software. You have to pay more attention to your party line, kier!
I don't have a party line, and my name has a captial letter K. Get it
right.
>>>
>>> WGA and DRM are only threats to people who are not willing or able to pay
>>
>> Bullshit. Neither one is acceptable.
>>
> Why is that? All these things do is thwart thieves.
Because it makes no distintion between thieves (who can get round it all
anyway), and the honest user who is inconvenienced or restricted for no
good reason. DRM and the like doesn't stop criminals. All it does is annoy
the law-abiding.
>
>>> and there are as many or more hobbyists using Windows to play around as
>>> are
>>> using linux. It's a lot easier to create applications for Windows.
>>
>> Again, bullshit. Easier to creat apps for Windows? When in Linux
>> everything is open, there to be examined, so that you can build on the
>> work of others and improve it if you want, learn from it? With free tools,
>> right there is the distro? Gah! you're ridiculous.
>>
> Ah, kier, you are not being very innovative, eh? What do you design? It's
> a lot more satisfying to start from scratch and build something unique. As
> to sample software, I think there is a lot more available overall for
> Windows than for linux. Virtually everything available for linux is also
> available for Windows and then there is the Windows stuff that is not
> available to linux.
Who says Linux developers aren't original too? But there is almost nothing
that's truly never been thought of. Lone geniuses are rare - most
scientists build on the work of others, advancing as they go.
You're like the people who want to *patent* the human genome.
--
Kier
Kier
>
> "arachnid" <nos...@goawayspammer.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.08.10....@goawayspammer.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:49:21 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>> ... and then there is the Windows stuff that is not available to linux.
>>
>> Why would Linux users want viruses, spyware, trojans, adware, WPA, DRM,
>> and WGA?
>>
> You act as if there were very many linux users to begin with, spiderman!
> Certainly not enough of them to affect the course of desktop platform
> commerce.
>
> As to viruses, spyware, trojans, and adware, these are the substances of
> sick minds or else non-caring and not so intelligent vendors of questionable
> products and are not intrinsically limited to Windows. They may seem to be
> limited to Windows since Windows provides a lot of the user features that
> are needed to support their proliferation, but anything that allows the
> general population to send something useful also allows these malcontents
> the means to send something harmful or other wise undesirable. You will get
> just as much email spam with a linux mail reader as with Outlook.
You trying that old crock on us again, bill?
>
> If you are a penniless waif who cannot afford to contribute to the common
> weal, you may oppose WPA, DRM, and even WGA on the grounds that it may make
> your ability to pooch off someone else's stuff much harder to come by, but,
So, once again you call us thieves and scroungers, without the slightest
evidence. FYI, I am not penniless, and I earn my living. My opposition to
DRM, etc has nothing to do with money.
> for the normal user, it poses no problem. Enough music has alread been
> translated to MP3 to make DRM ineffective for those who truly want to
> get it for free and sites with WPA protection are catering to their own
> users. WGA is only intended to catch commercial pirates and doesn't
> affect regular people at all.
It's not about getting free mp3s, bill, and you know it. If I buy a CD,
why should I not have the right to transfer it to a musicplayer, or copy
it so that I can use the copy in my car? Why shouldn't I rip it to as many
PCs as I like, provided I don't make copies to seel illegally to others?
Why should any one tell me what OS I can watch a DVD *that I paid
for* on?
As for WGA, if it's only to catch commercial pirates, why is it causing
troublre to ordinary users?
--
Kier
Kier
That applys to Windows software writers, too, bill.
--
Kier
The Ghost In The Machine
<nos...@goawayspammer.com>
wrote
on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:03:43 -0500
<pan.2006.08.10....@goawayspammer.com>:
Ah, but remember, Vista will Fix Everything(tm).
(Sort of.) There is also the huge secondary virus
eradication market, perpetuated by Windows' fumbles.
McAfee (MFE) alone has $1.06B/year in revenue.
Lifted from http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=MFE:
McAfee, Inc. engages in developing, marketing,
distributing, and supporting computer security
solutions to prevent intrusions on networks and
protect computer systems from various threats and
attacks worldwide. Its products include McAfee System
Protection Solutions and McAfee Network Protection
Solutions. McAfee System Protection Solutions delivers
anti-virus, anti-spyware, managed services, application
firewalls, intrusion prevention, and security products
and services to protect systems, such as desktops
and servers.
So one might make a case that it's in McAfee's interest
to explicitly block Linux and continue with Windows.
Of course, such smacks of corruption and/or collusion,
so it's unlikely McAfee would seriously consider doing
such things.
But were Linux to take off McAfee would lose quite a bit of
business as Linux renders many virus eradication methods
totally unnecessary. (It won't eliminate all of them, of
course -- Li0n is mute testimony to that, and specialized
DDOS attacks such as teardrop might still be discovered,
although at this point the IP fragment processing bug that
teardrop exploited has long since been patched.)
Symantec is even bigger: $4.70B. Its profile is somewhat
similar to McAfee's.
As for what was actually *designed* for Windows, that's a
good question. Windows can presumably run anything Linux
can run, except for some of the more esoteric applications
that require heavy sound or OpenGL involvement. (This is
mostly because Cygwin allows for a Unix-like porting
environment; there's also Microsoft's Services For Unix
product and items such as MKS and Chameleon's NFS client.
Gnome and Qt ports to Windows are also either available,
or close to completion.)
Since AFAIK most game engines abstract the problem out,
most game engines won't care whether they're running
DirectX or OpenGL, and DirectSound or ALSA, except in an
isolation level which is OS-dependent. Most of the actual
bits on the installation CD or CDs isn't code, anyway; it's
artwork such as wall sides, skins, skies, and explosions. :-)
I don't consider this good for Linux, but I don't know
what would improve Linux's chances for the Average Joe,
unless the malware problem gets worse than it already is --
and it's pretty darned bad now.
The Ghost In The Machine
<bil...@microsoft.com>
wrote
on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:51:45 GMT
<5KHCg.9293$Pc....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
> "Oliver Wong" <ow...@castortech.com> wrote in message
> news:4kmCg.142814$A8.115214@clgrps12...
>>
>>
>> To be fair, I think it's a lot easier (in the sense of "lower barrier
>> to entry") to create an application using Visual Basic than, say, C or
>> Python. Just look at the near infinite supply of crappy VB programs as
>> evidence!
>>
> C# is more better, oliver.
"More better"?
C#'s acceptance in the marketplace has been fairly slow,
and Java is probably fighting off challenges such as PHP
and Python more vigorously than the rather laggardly C#.
For its part Gambas, blue lobster and all, makes an attempt to
do a Visual-Basic workalike/lookalike/codealike. It does
seem to work reasonably well; it's just been too long since
I've done BASIC for me to use it effectively without a goodly
amount of retraining. I've also not tried to make standalone
BASIC applications using Gambas yet.
> And for a lot of wannabes, nothing will make
> them any better. Look at a random SourceForge project to see that. Most
> people can't play the violin either, even if it were a Stradivarius.
>
Actually, making noise the violin isn't that difficult. Bow
the strings and one can get a screech out without difficulty,
or one can pluck (pizzicato) for a different effect.
Playing it *well* is a little harder. :-) One could use
a similar analogy for coding.
Ray Ingles
> ...anything that allows the
> the means to send something harmful or other wise undesirable.
Funny, email viruses aren't prevalent on the Mac...
...and that shows *why* you're just wrong. Outlook is flawed by design,
executing content indiscriminately and without user intervention.
(Indeed, the only way MS found to prevent such execution was to prevent
the user from doing so at *all*.) It is also tied into key parts of the
OS *and* typical users run with elevated privileges. A recipe for
disaster.
> You will get
> just as much email spam with a linux mail reader as with Outlook.
So long as Windows desktops are common, and thus there are plenty of
hosts for sendnig spam, that's probably true. But, as is usual with you,
it's only a half-truth. As noted above, that spam will *not* subvert
your system if you're using Linux. Outlook, on the other hand, will hand
out the keys to the kingdom to anyone who knocks on the door.
And you won't get hit with worms, trojans, and other malware variants,
which for some reason you don't mention at all.
> If you are a penniless waif who cannot afford to contribute to the common
> weal, you may oppose WPA, DRM, and even WGA on the grounds that it may make
> your ability to pooch off someone else's stuff much harder to come by
Haven't you noticed that people here are generally quite *happy* about
WGA? The more hassles there are for users of Windows (legitimate or
otherwise) the more attractive alternatives become.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate. They brought us
the email virus. - Jedidiah
Oliver Wong
"arachnid" <nos...@goawayspammer.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.10....@goawayspammer.com...
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:22:41 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> "arachnid" <nos...@goawayspammer.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.08.10....@goawayspammer.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:49:21 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... and then there is the Windows stuff that is not available to linux.
>>>
>>> Why would Linux users want viruses, spyware, trojans, adware, WPA, DRM,
>>> and WGA?
>>
>> The OP has a point in that there exists some nice apps for Windows of
>> which I haven't found equivalents in Linux. E.g. Reason
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_%28program%29
>>
>
> MS-Windows to finally reach the point where I can *do* something.
>
You can change the Windows shell to anything you want (it's a normal
program, just like any other): http://shell-shocked.org/article.php?id=220
Perhaps you could investigate hooking it up to IceWM via cygwin?
- Oliver
Kier
>
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.08.08....@tiscali.co.uk...
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:31:04 -0700, billwg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>> Microsoft and Apple ripped off from Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Gad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
>>> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
>>
>> Because it's a good, stable alternaitve to Windows that doesn't cost an
>> arm and a leg, and doesn't force you into expensive upgrade cycles;
>> because it's interesting, challenging, fun... lots of reasons. Because
>> it's there. Because it's exciting. Be we want to.
>>
> But is it any reason to change? Almost no one thinks so, kier. You need to
> focus on the issue.
The issue is, that people can and do change. And the crappier Windows is,
the more likely users are to think of giving alternatives a try. You seem
to think all users are sheep. I don't. Compared to Windows it may not be a
huge number, but that doesn't matter.
>
>>>
>>> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
>>
>> Tommyrot.
>>
> Is that your idea of an answer? Welcome to COLA! LOL!!!
That's funny, coming from you, lolboi, who never has a substantive answer
to anything put to you.
--
Kier
Ray Ingles
>> polished Linux desktops.
> Without promotion, none of this even reaches the market, ray.
We've done this already. It's being promoted more and more, *and* the
first market is enterprise desktops, where it's garnering notice and
positive reviews *and* conversions.
>> Second, more and more cross-platform apps are appearing, and their use
>> is spreading dramatically. Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, etc. Once
>> people are using these on Windows, the transition to Linux is *much*
>> simpler.
> "Cross-platform"??? That is silly. What usage there is of these apps is
> far and away on Windows.
"Once people are using these on Windows, the transition to Linux is
*much* simpler."
>> Third, the userbase is far more accustomed to working with varieties of
>> technologies and interfaces than even a couple years ago... The "cost"
>> of learning another GUI is lower now than it's ever been
> You make a fundament mistake in comparing a desktop computer to a cell
> phone, ray. There is no effect from one to the other in terms of consumer
> perceptions.
I wasn't talking about the consumer "perceiving" desktops and cell
phones to being the same thing, of course. I was noting that consumers
are becoming used to working with a variety of interfaces (add Web apps
to that list, BTW) so the old "unfamiliarity" argument holds no water now
(and this dovetails nicely with the cross-platform apps mentioned above -
there's very little new to learn when moving to Linux).
>> Fourth, security issues with Windows are becoming more and more
>> prevalent.
>> Remember that survey that came out a few months back that had MS in the
>> bottom three of companies in terms of brand trust?
> I think that you are ignoring reality here, ray. For one thing, the common
> perception is that Windows is getting less and less susceptible to viruses
> and malware.
What study can *you* cite that contradicts the one I just mentioned
above? Your hindquarters has not proved a reliable source ere now...
>> Fifth, DRM really is becoming more of an issue. My nephew wanted to
>> convert some mp3s into wma format so he could play them on his phone;
>> turned out to be rather more complex and/or expensive than he'd thought.
>>
> Use Plato. No problem at all.
$30 vs. free. I know which one my 13-year-old nephew picked. :->
>> It's already been documented
>> that MS is feeling this - you can deep discounts, all the way to free in
>> some cases, by mentioning 'Linux' when negotiating with them.
>>
> You see that as a positive for linux? Think about it!
Microsoft has *much* greater development costs than Linux, but Linux is
driving down their revenues - and as I've noted above, Linux is
developing *better* and *faster*. Yeah, I'd call it a positive. You
speak of consumer perception - what do they think when the supposed
leader has to *give* their stuff away to beat a competitor?
> The linux mimics are now reduced to copying Windows initiatives and
> GUI look and feel.
So you repeatedly claim, but I have asked you no less than three times
before:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/4070f5e6b2796799
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/2510c97243134da9
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/7e9ad83e99975416
"...find a feature [that] Microsoft claims will be available in IE7
that is not currently available for [Firefox]."
You have never come up with a single example. And you say that *Linux*
developers are copying from *Microsoft*?
>> I don't expect MS to go out of business, just to become much less
>> dominant over time, not unlike IBM did.
>>
> IBM is pretty dominant today, ray. Certainly they are not on the ropes.
Try reading what I wrote again, slowly. I didn't *say* IBM was on the
ropes, far from it.
>> Are you saying that *all* the Windows software
>> available at, say, download.com is of uniformly excellent quality?
>>
> You imagine a lot, ray. What is the most significant application that you
> can think of that is not also available for Windows?
Tell you what. You answer *my* questions, and then I'll think about
answering yours.
>> Yeah, right, never a false positive there...
>>
> Have you ever seen one?
Microsoft admits they've happened. But I know you don't trust them.
> Just what is your experience? In general terms, of course.
Why are you asking me *again*?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c5bcc36c2702b7f8
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and by
men who are equally certain that they represent the divine will. I am
sure that either the one or the other is mistaken in the belief, and
perhaps in some respects, both.
I hope it will not be irreverent of me to say that if it is probable
that God would reveal his will to others on a point so connected with
my duty, it might be supposed he would reveal it directly to me."
- Abraham Lincoln
billwg
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, billwg
> <bil...@microsoft.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:51:45 GMT
> <5KHCg.9293$Pc....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>>
>> "Oliver Wong" <ow...@castortech.com> wrote in message
>> news:4kmCg.142814$A8.115214@clgrps12...
>>>
>>>
>>> To be fair, I think it's a lot easier (in the sense of "lower barrier
>>> to entry") to create an application using Visual Basic than, say, C or
>>> Python. Just look at the near infinite supply of crappy VB programs as
>>> evidence!
>>>
>> C# is more better, oliver.
>
> "More better"?
>
> C#'s acceptance in the marketplace has been fairly slow,
> and Java is probably fighting off challenges such as PHP
> and Python more vigorously than the rather laggardly C#.
>
You must be in a much different market, ghost! What is that? "Python???"
> For its part Gambas, blue lobster and all, makes an attempt to
> do a Visual-Basic workalike/lookalike/codealike. It does
> seem to work reasonably well; it's just been too long since
> I've done BASIC for me to use it effectively without a goodly
> amount of retraining. I've also not tried to make standalone
> BASIC applications using Gambas yet.
>
Why use a cheap imitation, ghost?
>> And for a lot of wannabes, nothing will make
>> them any better. Look at a random SourceForge project to see that. Most
>> people can't play the violin either, even if it were a Stradivarius.
>>
>
> Actually, making noise the violin isn't that difficult. Bow
> the strings and one can get a screech out without difficulty,
> or one can pluck (pizzicato) for a different effect.
>
> Playing it *well* is a little harder. :-) One could use
> a similar analogy for coding.
>
Exactly.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-08-10, billwg <bil...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> ...anything that allows the
>> general population to send something useful also allows these malcontents
>> the means to send something harmful or other wise undesirable.
>
> Funny, email viruses aren't prevalent on the Mac...
>
> ...and that shows *why* you're just wrong. Outlook is flawed by design,
> executing content indiscriminately and without user intervention.
> (Indeed, the only way MS found to prevent such execution was to prevent
> the user from doing so at *all*.) It is also tied into key parts of the
> OS *and* typical users run with elevated privileges. A recipe for
> disaster.
>
I think you are wrong there, ray, and perhaps your knowledge of Windows and
its applications is faulty. Outlook won't even let you receive attachments
to messages unless you override the defaults. You are warned over and again
as to the folly of such practices, too, when you try to change the default
settings. You are living in the past. You blame the OS for providing
capabilities to the user that may cause the user to do something foolish.
Then you romanticise the OS that doesn't have any such features as superior.
I think you are trying to fool people, ray, but they are not buying that
song and dance.
>> You will get
>> just as much email spam with a linux mail reader as with Outlook.
>
> So long as Windows desktops are common, and thus there are plenty of
> hosts for sendnig spam, that's probably true. But, as is usual with you,
> it's only a half-truth. As noted above, that spam will *not* subvert
> your system if you're using Linux. Outlook, on the other hand, will hand
> out the keys to the kingdom to anyone who knocks on the door.
>
Spam is just boring repetitious messaging, ray. "Malware" is the name for
the stuff that harms your machine.
> And you won't get hit with worms, trojans, and other malware variants,
> which for some reason you don't mention at all.
>
>> If you are a penniless waif who cannot afford to contribute to the common
>> weal, you may oppose WPA, DRM, and even WGA on the grounds that it may
>> make
>> your ability to pooch off someone else's stuff much harder to come by
>
> Haven't you noticed that people here are generally quite *happy* about
> WGA? The more hassles there are for users of Windows (legitimate or
> otherwise) the more attractive alternatives become.
>
Not a care in the world, ray, no hassles at all.
billwg
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:49:21 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>>>
>> Why is that? All these things do is thwart thieves.
>
> Because it makes no distintion between thieves (who can get round it all
> anyway), and the honest user who is inconvenienced or restricted for no
> good reason. DRM and the like doesn't stop criminals. All it does is annoy
> the law-abiding.
>
>>
>
> Who says Linux developers aren't original too? But there is almost nothing
> that's truly never been thought of. Lone geniuses are rare - most
> scientists build on the work of others, advancing as they go.
>
But engineers like to start with a clean slate, kier! What linux developer
has ever been an originator of anything? OSS stuff is always a copy of
something commercial because the OSS model lacks the product marketing
function needed to be innovative.
> You're like the people who want to *patent* the human genome.
>
I don't think so, kier. I would only want a person who comes up with a new
idea that makes something better to be allowed to benefit from that
innovation. The more popular OSS offerings have a million or more users and
several orders of magnitude fewer contributors, making it a 99.9+% case of
most people getting something for nothing and then getting up on a soap box
to preach that they should receive even more forever.
billwg
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:24:33 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> "arachnid" <nos...@goawayspammer.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.08.10....@goawayspammer.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:49:21 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... and then there is the Windows stuff that is not available to linux.
>>>
>>> Why would Linux users want viruses, spyware, trojans, adware, WPA, DRM,
>>> and WGA?
>>>
>> You act as if there were very many linux users to begin with, spiderman!
>> Certainly not enough of them to affect the course of desktop platform
>> commerce.
>>
>> As to viruses, spyware, trojans, and adware, these are the substances of
>> sick minds or else non-caring and not so intelligent vendors of
>> questionable
>> products and are not intrinsically limited to Windows. They may seem to
>> be
>> limited to Windows since Windows provides a lot of the user features that
>> are needed to support their proliferation, but anything that allows the
>> general population to send something useful also allows these malcontents
>> the means to send something harmful or other wise undesirable. You will
>> get
>> just as much email spam with a linux mail reader as with Outlook.
>
> You trying that old crock on us again, bill?
>
eagerly awaited messages?
>>
>> If you are a penniless waif who cannot afford to contribute to the common
>> weal, you may oppose WPA, DRM, and even WGA on the grounds that it may
>> make
>> your ability to pooch off someone else's stuff much harder to come by,
>> but,
>
> So, once again you call us thieves and scroungers, without the slightest
> evidence. FYI, I am not penniless, and I earn my living. My opposition to
> DRM, etc has nothing to do with money.
>
DRM would have no effect on you if you were willing to pay people to use
their IP or to listen to their work product.
>
>> for the normal user, it poses no problem. Enough music has alread been
>> translated to MP3 to make DRM ineffective for those who truly want to
>> get it for free and sites with WPA protection are catering to their own
>> users. WGA is only intended to catch commercial pirates and doesn't
>> affect regular people at all.
>
> It's not about getting free mp3s, bill, and you know it. If I buy a CD,
> why should I not have the right to transfer it to a musicplayer, or copy
> it so that I can use the copy in my car? Why shouldn't I rip it to as many
> PCs as I like, provided I don't make copies to seel illegally to others?
> Why should any one tell me what OS I can watch a DVD *that I paid
> for* on?
Why do you think that you don't, kier? There haven't been any cases of
anyone being prosecuted or sued for doing that. The only time that the RIAA
and MPAA get riled up is when you put a whole lot of tunes on the internet
and invite everyone to share. Now I don't think that the RIAA is right,
even then, but if they want to encrypt their stuff so that it is harder to
copy, that is their right and if other companies want to sell stuff to work
with those copies and people are willing to buy them, that is OK, too.
>
> As for WGA, if it's only to catch commercial pirates, why is it causing
> troublre to ordinary users?
>
Why do you think that it is, kier? What evidence do you have other than the
braying of the COLA commandos?
arachnid
>
> "arachnid" <nos...@goawayspammer.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.08.10....@goawayspammer.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:22:41 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:
>>
>>> "arachnid" <nos...@goawayspammer.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2006.08.10....@goawayspammer.com...
>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:49:21 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... and then there is the Windows stuff that is not available to linux.
>>>>
>>>> Why would Linux users want viruses, spyware, trojans, adware, WPA, DRM,
>>>> and WGA?
>>>
>>> The OP has a point in that there exists some nice apps for Windows of
>>> which I haven't found equivalents in Linux. E.g. Reason
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_%28program%29
>>>
>>
>> For me it's icewm. I miss it every time I have to sit there waiting on
>> MS-Windows to finally reach the point where I can *do* something.
>>
>
> You can change the Windows shell to anything you want (it's a normal
> program, just like any other): http://shell-shocked.org/article.php?id=220
I'm not a huge blackbox fan, but bb4win may be worth it if it
speeds up my boot time. Google doesn't turn up a whole lot of information
on that aspect, just some comments that it "speeds up boot-times a little"
and one claim it saves 20 seconds on boot (but I don't know anything about
the system).
It's sure worth a look, though. Thanks for the link!
>
> Perhaps you could investigate hooking it up to IceWM via cygwin?
>
It's easier to use straight Linux than bother with cygwin on top
of Windows.
The Ghost In The Machine
<yTOCg.11110$Pc....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:ou5sq3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, billwg
>> <bil...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:51:45 GMT
>> <5KHCg.9293$Pc....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>>>
>>> "Oliver Wong" <ow...@castortech.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4kmCg.142814$A8.115214@clgrps12...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, I think it's a lot easier (in the sense of "lower barrier
>>>> to entry") to create an application using Visual Basic than, say, C or
>>>> Python. Just look at the near infinite supply of crappy VB programs as
>>>> evidence!
>>>>
>>> C# is more better, oliver.
>>
>> "More better"?
>>
> Precisely, ghost, as in "Mo' betta!".
Gad, I must be getting old. That idiom makes about as much
sense as Shakespearian terms sans explanations (which are
usually provided in most texts).
>
>> C#'s acceptance in the marketplace has been fairly slow,
>> and Java is probably fighting off challenges such as PHP
>> and Python more vigorously than the rather laggardly C#.
>>
> You must be in a much different market, ghost! What is that? "Python???"
It's a scripting language, very object-oriented, and comes
with GUI as well. I'm not as familiar with it as Java, but
it looks very powerful.
>
>> For its part Gambas, blue lobster and all, makes an attempt to
>> do a Visual-Basic workalike/lookalike/codealike. It does
>> seem to work reasonably well; it's just been too long since
>> I've done BASIC for me to use it effectively without a goodly
>> amount of retraining. I've also not tried to make standalone
>> BASIC applications using Gambas yet.
>>
> Why use a cheap imitation, ghost?
Well, for starters, because it's cheap. :-P You think I have scads of
money to throw at Redmond or something?
>
>>> And for a lot of wannabes, nothing will make
>>> them any better. Look at a random SourceForge project to see that. Most
>>> people can't play the violin either, even if it were a Stradivarius.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, making noise the violin isn't that difficult. Bow
>> the strings and one can get a screech out without difficulty,
>> or one can pluck (pizzicato) for a different effect.
>>
>> Playing it *well* is a little harder. :-) One could use
>> a similar analogy for coding.
>>
> Exactly.
>
So what's *your* excuse? :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random screechy sound here
billwg
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:26:11 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.08.08....@tiscali.co.uk...
>>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:31:04 -0700, billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>> Microsoft and Apple ripped off from Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gad.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
>>>> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
>>>
>>> Because it's a good, stable alternaitve to Windows that doesn't cost an
>>> arm and a leg, and doesn't force you into expensive upgrade cycles;
>>> because it's interesting, challenging, fun... lots of reasons. Because
>>> it's there. Because it's exciting. Be we want to.
>>>
>> But is it any reason to change? Almost no one thinks so, kier. You need
>> to
>> focus on the issue.
>
> The issue is, that people can and do change. And the crappier Windows is,
> the more likely users are to think of giving alternatives a try. You seem
> to think all users are sheep. I don't. Compared to Windows it may not be a
> huge number, but that doesn't matter.
>
there is some promise of some reward for switching from Windows to linux,
i.e. being able to do something far better or not being able to do something
at all with Windows that can be done with linux, no one is going to have any
reason, other than perhaps curiosity, to make a change. That is not saying
that users are sheep, kier, it is saying that users are rational folk who
have a more important agenda than experimenting with computer OS platforms.
>>
>>>>
>>>> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
>>>
>>> Tommyrot.
>>>
>> Is that your idea of an answer? Welcome to COLA! LOL!!!
>
> That's funny, coming from you, lolboi, who never has a substantive answer
> to anything put to you.
>
I would rather think that you do not want to understand, kier. And that is
still no answer.
billwg
expects to see. When he does not see it, there has to be an explanation as
to why and some non-trivial effort to sell the replacement as superior. But
that does not seem to happen, even with the few OEM opportunities that users
have for obtaining a linux machine. They are invariably the bottom of the
line and the consumer pays an upcharge to get Windows on the same machine.
The COLA cheer is that this situation shows the superior economies of linux,
but the real message that is received is that linux is a low-price
substitute and not as high in quality.
>>
>>>> Servers, servers, servers, ghost! Linux is a replacement for unix to
>>>> some extent there.
>
> For most extent here. Sun is suffering. IBM has already capitulated on
> AIX. I don't know what HP is doing but I doubt HP/UX has that much of a
> future.
>
IBM and HP both feature AIX or HPUX as the superior platform and charge more
for them on the same hardware platforms. I don't see that as any kind of
capitulation.
>>>> But what about the desktop? That is the question.
>
> What about it? At some point Microsoft is going to have to reenter the
> server market. (How, I'm not sure.) It will then leverage its
> dominance in the desktop market to get everyone to install Windows
> Server Edition.
>
Where do you see MS having withdrawn from the server market, ghost? You
have lost me here.
>
> As it is, Microsoft will dominate the desktop market until someone gets
> the bright idea of offering high-end Linux boxes, low-end Linux boxes,
> and mid-end Linux boxes alongside the high-end Windows boxes, low-end
> Windows boxes, and mid-end Windws boxes -- for a *lower* price with the
> exact *same* configuration.
>
> And even then, most people will pick Windows. Why? Because that's what
> they know.
>
I don't believe that you will ever see that happening, ghost. It is a high
risk for zero potential gain on the part of OEMs. The only way that it can
work is for customers to demand linux as they now demand Windows, thinking
or unthinking, take your pick. But there is no way for linux to create the
demand. Ergo, it will never happen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK no studies have been done regarding TCO on the desktop.
>>> Windows TCO is probably lower, however, if one believes the IDC numbers,
>>> and higher if one believes the Robert (IBM) numbers.
>>>
>> No one buys many machines with linux pre-installed for the desktop,
>> ghost.
>> Wal-Mart has tried to sell them, but they don't seem to be enough of a
>> roaring success to raise Microtel's profits or Wal-Mart's. No one seems
>> to
>> be hopping on the bandwagon even years after the initial attempts.
>>
>
> Exactly. We're all waiting for Windows Vista, The OS That
> Will Fix Everything(tm). Windows Vista will be the most
> secure Windows solution on the desktop.
>
> Ever.
>
> This will excite people. This will make them want Vista. This
> will cause them to queue up about a year from now clamoring for
> Vista at 2 in the morning. Even with Vista's rather big hardware
> requirements.
>
> Me, I prefer sleeping in. :-) Especially since the only box I have that
> might even contemplate running Vista already is running Linux, and
> there's no real space for it. :-)
>
Vista is Windows 6.0 where Win2K was 5.0 and XP was 5.1. It doesn't have to
be any better than XP to keep the business. Nothing else is seen as being
as good as XP. They already have all the business from any practical
standpoint, so there is no way to get more.
Kier
>
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.08.10....@tiscali.co.uk...
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:49:21 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Why is that? All these things do is thwart thieves.
>>
>> Because it makes no distintion between thieves (who can get round it all
>> anyway), and the honest user who is inconvenienced or restricted for no
>> good reason. DRM and the like doesn't stop criminals. All it does is annoy
>> the law-abiding.
>>
> Where have you ever been inconvenienced or restricted by DRM?
Personally? Seldom, since I avoid such products if I can. Which means I've
had to stop buying the CDs of certain bands which I like, because their
work is put on CDs with copy-protection. Since I'm not a thief, and I pay
for the CDs, I don't see why I should be treated like a thief. I have no
intention of making copies to trade for cash.
>>>
>
>>
>> Who says Linux developers aren't original too? But there is almost nothing
>> that's truly never been thought of. Lone geniuses are rare - most
>> scientists build on the work of others, advancing as they go.
>>
> But engineers like to start with a clean slate, kier! What linux developer
> has ever been an originator of anything? OSS stuff is always a copy of
> something commercial because the OSS model lacks the product marketing
> function needed to be innovative.
Untrue.
>
>> You're like the people who want to *patent* the human genome.
>>
> I don't think so, kier. I would only want a person who comes up with a new
> idea that makes something better to be allowed to benefit from that
Ultimately, patents *don't* provide real benefits. They may have done
once, when idea were being thought up by individuals. Nowadays its all
conglomerates, who stitch up everything to their own benefit and never
mind who they should be serving.
> innovation. The more popular OSS offerings have a million or more users
> and several orders of magnitude fewer contributors, making it a 99.9+%
> case of most people getting something for nothing and then getting up on
> a soap box to preach that they should receive even more forever.
It's worthless discussing anything with you when you persist in
mischaracterising the OSS movement and the hard work of Linux developers.
You can't even manage to put a capital letter on my name. Frankly, I'm
tired of bothering with you.
No doubt you'll crow your usual LOL! and call this a victory, but don't
kid yourself.
--
Kier
Kier
How about no malware, better security, and an OS that doesn't continually
nag them to register what they've already paid for? How about an OS that
doesn't phone how to find out if they've altered something *on their own
machine* and then demand thy register again?
> i.e. being able to do something far better or not being able to do
> something at all with Windows that can be done with linux, no one is
> going to have any reason, other than perhaps curiosity, to make a
> change. That is not saying that users are sheep, kier, it is saying
> that users are rational folk who have a more important agenda than
> experimenting with computer OS platforms.
That doesn't cover everyone. The number that will be motivated to do
something about their situation is likely to be fairly small, but it
grows. No one is suggesting it will suddenly overtake Windows, that would
be foolsih. But it's still not insignificant. If it were, how come MS is
so panicky about Linux?
Why? Because they fear it.
>
>
>
>>>>> You all carp and cavil, but you never answer.
>>>>
>>>> Tommyrot.
>>>>
>>> Is that your idea of an answer? Welcome to COLA! LOL!!!
>>
>> That's funny, coming from you, lolboi, who never has a substantive
>> answer to anything put to you.
>>
> I would rather think that you do not want to understand, kier. And that
> is still no answer.
I rather think you are still full of shit, lolboi. That's the only answer
you'll get.
--
Kier
Ray Ingles
> eagerly awaited messages?
As a matter of fact...
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Junk_Mail_Controls
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"[Jose Padilla's] legal status is the same as any other citizen's.
If he can be forever detained by executive order without so much as
a hearing before an independent magistrate, so can anybody else."
- M. W. Guzy
Ray Ingles
> Until there is some promise of some reward for switching from Windows to
> linux, i.e. being able to do something far better or not being able to do
And, gee, WGA is coming out. Assuming it works, it's going to make
the widespread piracy in places like Asia far more difficult. If they
can't run Windows at all (since they can't afford the license fees)
they'll move to alternatives like Linux.
Now, you usually dismiss this with some flippant comment like "Who
cares? That won't affect Microsoft's bottom line."
Of course, you're ignoring the network effects - the more users a
system has, the more development attention it gets. Even if you don't
think people would sell Linux apps, the people *using* it can develop
for it. (Linux is already the most internationalized OS in history,
because people who want support for their language *can* add it.)
Might I note that people in the developing world aren't any less
intelligent than people in the developed world? That's a *lot* of
development attention. When that attention has economic constraints, new
efficiencies tend to be discovered and developed.
It also blunts Windows growth, limiting it to fairly rich, high-end
areas. You're positive such being in such an area is a death sentence
for proprietary Unix, why not Windows?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Open source code is not guaranteed nor does it come with a
warranty." - the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute
"I guess that's in contrast to proprietary software, which
comes with a money-back guarantee, and free on-site repairs
if any bugs are found." - Rary
Hadron Quark
> On 2006-08-11, billwg <bil...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Until there is some promise of some reward for switching from Windows to
>> linux, i.e. being able to do something far better or not being able to do
>> something at all with Windows that can be done with linux...
>
> And, gee, WGA is coming out. Assuming it works, it's going to make
> the widespread piracy in places like Asia far more difficult. If they
> can't run Windows at all (since they can't afford the license fees)
> they'll move to alternatives like Linux.
Its already well entrenched in India.
Oliver Wong
"billwg" <bil...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:U%OCg.13925$9.7...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> So, once again you call us thieves and scroungers, without the slightest
>> evidence. FYI, I am not penniless, and I earn my living. My opposition to
>> DRM, etc has nothing to do with money.
>>
> DRM would have no effect on you if you were willing to pay people to use
> their IP or to listen to their work product.
That's not strictly true, as it depends on the DRM implementation.
<Without DRM>
I legally buy an audio CD from my favorite artist. Under fair use
doctrines, I'm allowed to rip the audio data into mp3 files on my computer
(as long as [a bunch of stuff, including deleting the backups if I ever sell
or give the CD away to someone else, etc.]). I do so and then copy the mp3
files to my favorite mp3 player so I can listen to it where ever I go. When
I get home, I find out that my kid brother, who's completely clueless about
computers, managed to delete my entire mp3 collection. I yell at him, and
then start the process of re-ripping my CDs back to mp3. This is a
relatively straightforward process.</Without DRM>
<With a hypothetical implementation of DRM>
I legally buy an audio CD from my favorite artist. The DRM software
allows me to make ONE ripping at any one time. So I say yes, I agree to
perform the ripping, and it gets encoded in some strange format I've never
heard of. I copy the file onto my mp3 player, but my mp3 player has no idea
how to play this content, so I can't actually listen to the music anywhere
except on my computer. I give up in disgust for now. Later, I found out my
kid brother managed to delete all my music. I yell at him, and attempt to
re-rip the songs from the CD. The ripping software refuses, because it says
I already have a copy of the song "somewhere". It tells me to "de-activate"
the song first, to re-enable ripping onto another location. Of course, I
can't do this, because the song has been completely deleted.
</With a hypothetical implementation of DRM>
- Oliver
Kier
>
> "billwg" <bil...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:U%OCg.13925$9.7...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.08.10...@tiscali.co.uk...
>
>>> So, once again you call us thieves and scroungers, without the slightest
>>> evidence. FYI, I am not penniless, and I earn my living. My opposition to
>>> DRM, etc has nothing to do with money.
>>>
>> DRM would have no effect on you if you were willing to pay people to use
>> their IP or to listen to their work product.
>
> That's not strictly true, as it depends on the DRM implementation.
>
> <Without DRM>
> I legally buy an audio CD from my favorite artist. Under fair use
> doctrines, I'm allowed to rip the audio data into mp3 files on my computer
> (as long as [a bunch of stuff, including deleting the backups if I ever sell
> or give the CD away to someone else, etc.]). I do so and then copy the mp3
I would bet that most people wouldn't ecver delete their backups, even if
they had given away/lost the CD. I would say this is okay if they never
sell on the music files or give them away to a third party.
> files to my favorite mp3 player so I can listen to it where ever I go.
> When I get home, I find out that my kid brother, who's completely
> clueless about computers, managed to delete my entire mp3 collection. I
> yell at him, and then start the process of re-ripping my CDs back to
> mp3. This is a relatively straightforward process.</Without DRM>
>
> <With a hypothetical implementation of DRM>
> I legally buy an audio CD from my favorite artist. The DRM software
> allows me to make ONE ripping at any one time. So I say yes, I agree to
> perform the ripping, and it gets encoded in some strange format I've
> never heard of. I copy the file onto my mp3 player, but my mp3 player
> has no idea how to play this content, so I can't actually listen to the
> music anywhere except on my computer. I give up in disgust for now.
> Later, I found out my kid brother managed to delete all my music. I yell
> at him, and attempt to re-rip the songs from the CD. The ripping
> software refuses, because it says I already have a copy of the song
> "somewhere". It tells me to "de-activate" the song first, to re-enable
> ripping onto another location. Of course, I can't do this, because the
> song has been completely deleted. </With a hypothetical implementation
> of DRM>
>
Exactly. It may seem far-fetched, but such situations could arise. I think
DRM is trying to shut a stable door on a long-bolted horse; slapping on
restrictions now is just going to annoy people. Legal downloads should be
made easy, and cheap, and fair, private usage should be permitted, IMO,
rather than draconian methods.
--
Kier
Ray Ingles
> I think you are wrong there, ray, and perhaps your knowledge of Windows and
> its applications is faulty. Outlook won't even let you receive attachments
> to messages unless you override the defaults.
I'm not talking about attachments, though (as you basically parroted
back to me) I noted that the only solution Microsoft could come up with
for that was to disable their implementation completely. I'm taking
about how the mail client is integrated into the OS *and* likes to
render stuff it shouldn't.
Here, from *three days ago*:
-----------
MS06-043--Vulnerability in Microsoft Windows Could Allow Remote Code
Execution.
This vulnerability relates to the parsing of MHTML in Outlook Express.
If a user with administrative privileges is running Outlook Express and
opens an appropriately formatted email, the attacker could gain control
of the user's system.
Applies to: Win2K SP4, XP SP1 and SP2, Windows 2003 SP1
Recommendation: Organizations that use Outlook Express as their mail
client should test and install the patch immediately. The patch is
important but not critical for organizations that use alternative mail
clients.
-----------
Just hope you don't get a message that exploits a flaw like this. You
don't even have to consciously open it, all you have to do is have it
come up in the preview window... or you could switch to an "alternative
mail client".
> You blame the OS for providing
> capabilities to the user that may cause the user to do something foolish.
No, I don't. I blame the designers for bolting *applications* into the
*OS*.
And even Microsoft has finally learned a bit of lesson there. But they
can't fix the way their OS works, so they are going the other way
around, extracting IE from the OS and modifying IE itself to operate
with lower privileges. If *they* can admit their mistakes, why can't
*you* admit their mistakes?
http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/podcasts/techmaven/techandu_03_09_06.htm
> Then you romanticise the OS that doesn't have any such features as superior.
Oh, no, Linux *can* and *does* do all the stuff legitimate users want
to do. It just doesn't support the bad guys doing the things *they* want
to do. Important distinction, which you pretend not to notice.
>>> You will get
>>> just as much email spam with a linux mail reader as with Outlook.
As has already been noted, that's not true, as open-source clients like
Tunderbird have built-in adaptive spam filters.
> Spam is just boring repetitious messaging, ray. "Malware" is the name for
> the stuff that harms your machine.
But some spam (email worms, a category *invented* by Microsoft's
stupidity) is also malware, that exploits flaws like, well, the one that
was patched three days ago.
>> Haven't you noticed that people here are generally quite *happy* about
>> WGA? The more hassles there are for users of Windows (legitimate or
>> otherwise) the more attractive alternatives become.
>>
> Not a care in the world, ray, no hassles at all.
For *you*, perhaps. Others (legitimate customers and otherwise) are
less enamored. :->
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not
entitled to your own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
arachnid
>
> "billwg" <bil...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:U%OCg.13925$9.7...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.08.10...@tiscali.co.uk...
>
>>> So, once again you call us thieves and scroungers, without the slightest
>>> evidence. FYI, I am not penniless, and I earn my living. My opposition to
>>> DRM, etc has nothing to do with money.
>>>
>> DRM would have no effect on you if you were willing to pay people to use
>> their IP or to listen to their work product.
>
> That's not strictly true, as it depends on the DRM implementation.
>
Here's another example: Someone over on the Windows group has XP Pro on
their laptop and plain XP on their desktop machine. They want to swap
them so as to have XP Pro on their desktop and plain XP on the notebook.
Unfortunately, the XP Pro is a bios-locked OEM version.
They've paid for both versions, so why shouldn't they be able to swap them?
billwg
>
>
> That's not strictly true, as it depends on the DRM implementation.
>
an action taken by the content producer and is a legitimate term and
condition of sale. If you do not like the terms, you will not buy their
products. The content provider can just as easily put a restriciton on the
use of the material that is the same as the restriction that is placed by
the DRM encoding. You don't physically have to obey the restrictions if
they are mere words, but you may have to go to some lengths to sidestep the
DRM. Of course there will be an immediate crack of anything, but the vast
majority of consumers are not up to the task of obtaining and applying the
crack, so the content provider is happy, particularly since the crackers are
not very likely to be customers under any circumstances.
news.cogeco.ca
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> intelligent than people in the developed world? That's a *lot* of
> development attention. When that attention has economic constraints, new
> efficiencies tend to be discovered and developed.
Oh, recent history seems to indicate that AmeriKKKans are among the dumbest
people on earth. Particularly Republican AmeriKKKans, for whom most still
support the lying murderer, who currently occupies the White House.
In any country for which the population were truly intelligent, Bushie would
have been executed a long time ago.
Well the truth be told, the Fascist wouldn't have been elected at all.
news.cogeco.ca
> allows me to make ONE ripping at any one time. So I say yes, I agree to
> perform the ripping, and it gets encoded in some strange format I've never
> heard of. I copy the file onto my mp3 player, but my mp3 player has no
idea
> how to play this content, so I can't actually listen to the music anywhere
> except on my computer. I give up in disgust for now.
Look oliver, to the corporate mind you are a sheep to be sheered of all the
wool that you can produce. You are a slave to the marketplace, a slave to
capitalism, and will become a willing slave to DRM or else you will be
defined as a criminal and imprisoned.
As a slave, you have no rights to information, communication, or even your
own genetic code. These are all things that must be owned and controlled by
corporate interests so that you and your litter of mongrel offspring will
remain corporate slaves forever.
So shut the fuck up. You will eat your DRM, and you will like it. Eat it
or die.
Mark Kent
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:42:59 GMT,
> Oliver Wong <ow...@castortech.com> wrote:
>>
>> "JDS" <jef...@invalid.address> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.08.08....@invalid.address...
>>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:31:04 -0700, billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Disparage the style all you want, ghost, but the quintessential point
>>>> remains: "Why bother with linux?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> utilities, servers, and tools, free from viruses, spyware, and adware,
>>> free from WGA, free from DRM, free to upgrade, free to downgrade, free to
>>> tweak, twiddle, cajole, compile, and rearrange, free to do whatever you
>>> want. Free to evangelize and promote its use. Free to not care if
>>> others use it. Free as in beer. Free as in freedom.
>>
>> I agree with most of these, but...
>>
>> "free from DRM": I believe Linus said he plans to support DRM in Linux.
>> You are of course, free to not use DRM in Linux, but you are also free to
>> not use DRM in Windows.
>>
>
> No, Linus said that Linux wouldn't be *blocking* people from adding DRM
> hooks, not that he was planning on adding them,
>
>> "free to do whatever you want": Actually, no. Linux is licensed under
>> GPL, which places some restrictions on what you're allowed to do.
>>
>
> true, far less restrictions than under simple copyright, but it's far
> from public domain, no matter what MS may think.
>
Basically, you're not allowed to steal the code, which is why Microsoft
dislikes the GPL so much.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Ernest asks Frank how long he has been working for the company.
"Ever since they threatened to fire me."
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
free and show Microsoft's commitment to continuous product improvement.
>
> Just hope you don't get a message that exploits a flaw like this. You
> don't even have to consciously open it, all you have to do is have it
> come up in the preview window... or you could switch to an "alternative
> mail client".
>
I don't read mail that doesn't come from someone on my address book list,
ray. And I don't preview anything. If you want to catch my attention, you
have to get your message into the subject line.
>> You blame the OS for providing
>> capabilities to the user that may cause the user to do something foolish.
>
> No, I don't. I blame the designers for bolting *applications* into the
> *OS*.
>
> And even Microsoft has finally learned a bit of lesson there. But they
> can't fix the way their OS works, so they are going the other way
> around, extracting IE from the OS and modifying IE itself to operate
> with lower privileges. If *they* can admit their mistakes, why can't
> *you* admit their mistakes?
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/podcasts/techmaven/techandu_03_09_06.htm
>
If so, then that is the way it will be. MS can pick and choose and will do
so to continue to please the majority of their customers.
>> Then you romanticise the OS that doesn't have any such features as
>> superior.
>
> Oh, no, Linux *can* and *does* do all the stuff legitimate users want
> to do. It just doesn't support the bad guys doing the things *they* want
> to do. Important distinction, which you pretend not to notice.
>
Well, you may not have a large enough view, ray.
>>>> You will get
>>>> just as much email spam with a linux mail reader as with Outlook.
>
> As has already been noted, that's not true, as open-source clients like
> Tunderbird have built-in adaptive spam filters.
>
Doesn't work worth spit, ray. I've tried it. Thunderbird has horrible
threading functionality, too. Much more trouble than it is worth.
>> Spam is just boring repetitious messaging, ray. "Malware" is the name
>> for
>> the stuff that harms your machine.
>
> But some spam (email worms, a category *invented* by Microsoft's
> stupidity) is also malware, that exploits flaws like, well, the one that
> was patched three days ago.
>
Didn't affect me, ray. Anyone planning on sending such things to cause harm
might reflect on the penalty to be paid if they are ever caught. With
routers keeping logs and such, it may not be that hard to find the hacker if
the damage is severe enough to warrant a prosecution.
>>> Haven't you noticed that people here are generally quite *happy* about
>>> WGA? The more hassles there are for users of Windows (legitimate or
>>> otherwise) the more attractive alternatives become.
>>>
>> Not a care in the world, ray, no hassles at all.
>
> For *you*, perhaps. Others (legitimate customers and otherwise) are
> less enamored. :->
>
Go on wishing and hoping, ray! Perhaps it will brighten your day. But
consider that the only hope linux advocates seem to have is for Microsoft to
eventually chuck so badly that people will have no alternative. Sadly for
your chances, MS Windows just seems to get better and better every version
and next to no one seems to ever convert to linux because of any dislike for
Windows. No one except the silly little wannabes who seem to think it
fashionable to be contrarians, of course. But who cares?
Mark Kent
The following is from a real windows advocate, posting off-topic into
the linux group:
billwg <bil...@microsoft.com> espoused:
> I don't read mail that doesn't come from someone on my address book list,
> ray. And I don't preview anything. If you want to catch my attention, you
> have to get your message into the subject line.
>
Clearly, this is the kind of environment which windows users are
unfortunate enough to have to live in, and one has to feel rather sorry
for them. Linux, on the other hand, offers a fully flexible user
experience when handling email - no reason to panic or be nervous about
previewing, or restricting messages to those from people who've already
sent you one.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.
-- Ovid (43 B.C. - A.D. 18)
billwg
"Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:luu5r3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
> begin oe_protect.scr
>
> The following is from a real windows advocate, posting off-topic into
> the linux group:
>
> billwg <bil...@microsoft.com> espoused:
>> I don't read mail that doesn't come from someone on my address book list,
>> ray. And I don't preview anything. If you want to catch my attention,
>> you
>> have to get your message into the subject line.
>>
>
> Clearly, this is the kind of environment which windows users are
> unfortunate enough to have to live in, and one has to feel rather sorry
> for them. Linux, on the other hand, offers a fully flexible user
> experience when handling email - no reason to panic or be nervous about
> previewing, or restricting messages to those from people who've already
> sent you one.
>
choose to pick and choose what I'm willing to bother with. You do it your
way, though.
Rex Ballard
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrnedp7u9....@localhost.localdomain...
> > On 2006-08-10, billwg <bil...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> I think you are wrong there, ray, and perhaps your knowledge of Windows
> >> and its applications is faulty. Outlook won't even let you receive
> >> attachments to messages unless you override the defaults.
But it will let you view or preview messages in HTML format using IE
(actually an IE COM object) as the viewer, by default. The IE viewer
default settings is to permit signed ActiveX controls to run without
notifying the customer.
Spyware can be installed by simply purchasing a certificate from
Verisign, Thawte Group, or even Microsoft, and then sending signed
ActiveX controls in spam. Since people have to preview the e-mail
message to find out if it's spam or a message from a family member or
coworker, the preview loads the HTML which loads the ActiveX control
which now has access required to load and install spambots, and
spyware. And this is Windows doing what it was designed to do.
Microsoft wanted this capability so that they could monitor piracy,
monitor customer usage patterns, and identify trends such as hot new
software and information service markets which could be targeted by
Microsoft before a competitor established a substantial beach-head.
And of course, they get the customer to agree to these terms by
clicking the "accept" button on the EULA which they almost never
actually read. It really is an amazing feat of technical, legal, and
social engineering combined.
> > -----------
> > MS06-043--Vulnerability in Microsoft Windows Could Allow Remote Code
> > Execution.
> >
> > This vulnerability relates to the parsing of MHTML in Outlook Express.
> > If a user with administrative privileges is running Outlook Express and
> > opens an appropriately formatted email, the attacker could gain control
> > of the user's system.
See above for description of appropriately formatted email.
> > Applies to: Win2K SP4, XP SP1 and SP2, Windows 2003 SP1
> >
> > Recommendation: Organizations that use Outlook Express as their mail
> > client should test and install the patch immediately. The patch is
> > important but not critical for organizations that use alternative mail
> > clients.
> > -----------
> I install patches automatically, ray. Everyone should do that. They are
> free and show Microsoft's commitment to continuous product improvement.
Some patches have been very disruptive. Many seem to contain what I
call "torpedos", changes in library functions and other system level
code which either disables third party software, or renders it
disfunctional. Remember Windows NT 4.0 with SP2? That one actually
caused Cyrix chips to "melt". It would check the Chip ID, if it was
cyrix it would branch to a memory location containing the well-known
F00F sequence, and the chip would go into such a tight loop that chips
that were running at the margins anyway (due to overclocking or power
settings) would charge and discharge a finite number of gates so
quickly that the chip substrate would break down, in essence the space
between the CMOS gates would "melt" at a molecular level. IBM was
able to prove this in court and when the Judge denied Microsoft's
motion to suppress base on their claim that IBM had illegally reverse
engineered Microsoft's code to find this branch, Microsoft offered a
quick settlement in which they would release SP3 immediately. In
exchange, the records were sealed, all civil and criminal claims would
be dropped, and Microsoft executives were granted immunity from
prosecution for prior criminal acts of sabotage.
No, I don't have access to the sealed court records, and I don't even
know if I could find the records of the court case (since they were
sealed as well). I'd probably have to find hard-copy publications
which covered the events at the time, since the soft-copy versions seem
to be expunged when the court records of the transcripts are sealed.
Is this normal? Or does Microsoft just get special treatment because
it leverages nearly $40 billion in advertizing revenue through co-op,
trademark control, and placement control of OEM ads?
> > Just hope you don't get a message that exploits a flaw like this. You
> > don't even have to consciously open it, all you have to do is have it
> > come up in the preview window... or you could switch to an "alternative
> > mail client".
Like Thunderbird, Lotus Notes, or a Linux VMware Appliance? YES!!!
That is very effective by the way.
> I don't read mail that doesn't come from someone on my address book list,
> ray. And I don't preview anything. If you want to catch my attention, you
> have to get your message into the subject line.
So you are aware of the problem, and you admit that it exists. Of
course, this pretty much means that you are very different from most of
us in the world who want to read mail that is addressed to us to at
least find out whether it's another ad for bootleg viagra... or a
message from a family member who has changed their e-mail address as a
result of a merger. If I had used your strategy I wouldn't have gotten
e-mail from my dad for almost 2 years (he lives in Grand Junction
colorado and has had to change e-mail addresses about 4 times to to
changes in providers through mergers, divestatures, and service
changes.
> >> You blame the OS for providing
> >> capabilities to the user that may cause the user to do something foolish.
> >
> > No, I don't. I blame the designers for bolting *applications* into the
> > *OS*.
Technically, it's not really the OS, it's the libraries called by the
OS. But that's such a minor point. The net effect is the same.
> > And even Microsoft has finally learned a bit of lesson there. But they
> > can't fix the way their OS works, so they are going the other way
> > around, extracting IE from the OS and modifying IE itself to operate
> > with lower privileges. If *they* can admit their mistakes, why can't
> > *you* admit their mistakes?
> > http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/podcasts/techmaven/techandu_03_09_06.htm
> >
> If so, then that is the way it will be. MS can pick and choose and will do
> so to continue to please the majority of their customers.
And yet, in several surveys conducted by ComputerWorld, as many as 85%
of all end users indicated that they would switch to something other
than Windows if it were available to them.
Oops, I forgot, End Users are not Microsoft's customers. Microsoft's
customers are OEMS and CIOs of Fortune 500 companies. Both of whom are
forced to sign "shotgun contracts" (like a shotgun wedding, but
instead of marrying the farmer's ugly daughter, you sign an
unconcionable contract). When given the choice of signing a contract
which forces you to exclude competitors, forces you to do things which
are not in the best interests of YOUR customers, Employees and
Investors, or THEIR customers, Employees, and Investors, or not sign
and throw hundreds or even thousands of YOUR Employees out of work and
report huge losses to your investors, because you have NO Windows
licenses, or are paying as much as 3 times more for your licenses, you
sign.
And if it takes a bit of Fraud (Vaporware announcements like NT,
Chicago, Longhorn...), extortion (Compaq, remove Netscape and put back
the IE icon, or stop shipping Windows immediately), blackmail (you
don't want to sign up for the support program, let's do an audit of
your licenses for everything, including shareware). Sabotage (cyrix
F00F bug, Stacker, DR-DOS, GEM,...), and Obstruction of Justice (can't
talk to an investigator or lawyer for the plaintiff unless a Microsoft
lawyer is there, and you can't speak unless he tells you to, all
settlements require sealing of the records to prevent their use by
other plaintiffs...), to make sure that Microsoft Sales Reps meet their
quotas, that OEMs by 20-30% more licenses than they need, and that
corporations by additional licenses for each employee for machines that
are already licensed by the OEM - so be it.
Microsoft is a big monopoly and can (and has) bankrupt a company almost
instantly if it doesn't go along with Microsoft's plans. The bankrupt
companies don't "die", they get purchased by bigger companies.
Netscape got swallowed by AOL. Lotus got swallowed by IBM.
WordPerfect got swallowed by Corel. And then there are the "walking
dead". Borland is about to sell off it's software development
organization, but can't find a buyer. Corel is just barely making
their nut. Lotus SmartSuite couldn't even be preinstalled by IBM, and
IBM owned both the PC division and the Software. IBM finally just sold
of the PC division so that they wouldn't have to sign the OEM
agreements.
And when all else fails, Microsoft can have it's stakeholders excercise
their proxy muscles in the boardroom of a reluctant CEO or CIO to "make
some changes at the top". Do you think it's a coincidence that Carly
Fiorina was canned right after HP started shipping AMD-64 chips with
SUSE Linux? IT COULD HAPPEN!! But I suspect that Microsoft was able
to take advantage of friction that already existed, and use the proxies
held by a number of mutual funds, who also hold interests in Microsoft,
to tip the balance.
> >> Then you romanticise the OS that doesn't have any such features as
> >> superior.
> >
> > Oh, no, Linux *can* and *does* do all the stuff legitimate users want
> > to do. It just doesn't support the bad guys doing the things *they* want
> > to do. Important distinction, which you pretend not to notice.
> >
> Well, you may not have a large enough view, ray.
Billg has a point. Linux distributors have been focusing on End Users,
not OEMS and Corporate CIOs. Red Hat has gone to the CIOs to sell
servers, and that's working pretty well. Novell has begun to approach
OEMs. This is why Microsoft can claim that they have 99% of the OEM
market, even though almost as many Linux deployments are now being made
by end users in "after market upgrades". Figure that most AMD-64, Duo,
and OpenGL display based machines (FireGL, Radeon...) are being
purchased for the purpose of upgrading it to Linux.
> >>>> You will get
> >>>> just as much email spam with a linux mail reader as with Outlook.
> >
> > As has already been noted, that's not true, as open-source clients like
> > Tunderbird have built-in adaptive spam filters.
It also helps to have a POP connection to an e-mail provider that also
offers spam filtering. Between the two, most of the public access
stuff get's filtered. Unfortunately the internal corporate spambots
(because somebody previewed that HTML/ActiveX control) are harder to
block. But Linux DOES make them easier to trace back. Some companies
are using Linux "honey pots" to trace back and find the internal
machines that have been infected.
> Doesn't work worth spit, ray. I've tried it. Thunderbird has horrible
> threading functionality, too. Much more trouble than it is worth.
But Thunderbird does give you the ability to process hundreds of
e-mails per day without having to manually process each of them. It
also lets you very quickly preview them, using FireFox as the previewer
or without HTML, no HTML previewer, no ActiveX control, no
"self-installing software".
> >> Spam is just boring repetitious messaging, ray. "Malware" is the name
> >> for the stuff that harms your machine.
The problem is that some spam has nasty side effects. A keywatcher,
phish, or "lottery Winner" can be very effective at bilking the elderly
out of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars. When my
mother died, within 12 hours of her death, here entire checking account
was cleaned out using thousands of $22 charges. I guess the trick was
that there is a threshold of $25 below which they don't do normal
verification. Fortunately my dad caught it within about 3 hours of the
"drain", and notified the bank. The perpetrator was traced (using *nix
systems), arrested by the FBI, and found to have drained a total of
over $600 million from people's accounts.
> > But some spam (email worms, a category *invented* by Microsoft's
> > stupidity) is also malware, that exploits flaws like, well, the one that
> > was patched three days ago.
The irony is that this same patch has been issued several times and
then "unpatched" because it broke access to so many sites. The only
reason they are rolling it out again now is because there was discovery
that a set of real terrorists intended to use this tactic to do serious
damage to millions, possibly even tens of millions, of MS-Windows
computers.
> Didn't affect me, ray. Anyone planning on sending such things to cause harm
> might reflect on the penalty to be paid if they are ever caught.
In this particular case, the threat was from the same kinds of
terrorists who are willing to wire themselves up with explosives or
hijack airplanes. Do you actually think they were worried about maybe
being extradited from Iran or Syria to sit in a US federal prison?
For some of those guys, it would be a lifestyle upgrade!
> With routers keeping logs and such, it may not be that hard to find the hacker if
> the damage is severe enough to warrant a prosecution.
Interesting, you are making reference to the features of UNIX and LINUX
powered routers and logging tools. If you had Linux on your
workstation, you could trace the perpetrator all the way back, and even
have a record of his failed attempt to hack your machine. When Linux
gets an ActiveX or ActiveScript worm, it just looks like a text file.
You can even see the commands being sent. It's pretty funny really.
Some of these guys don't even try to hide the fact that they are
dumping a virus onto your laptop. Had it hit a Windows machine, it
would have run it's infestation, then cleaned itself up.
> Go on wishing and hoping, ray! Perhaps it will brighten your day. But
> consider that the only hope linux advocates seem to have is for Microsoft to
> eventually chuck so badly that people will have no alternative.
I remember Windows NT. Microsoft hyped it for almost 2 years, and when
it was finally delivered (3.1) it was so horrible that even those who
did buy it downgraded back to Windows 3.1 or WFW. Many started looking
much more seriously at OS/2, UnixWare, SCO, Solaris, and Linux. There
were even those in the ABM (Anything but Microsoft) camp.
But Billy announced yet another vaporware line called "Chicago" which
was supposed to be out in early 1994. It was finally released as
"Windows 95" in August of 1995. Like Windows NT, what was promised,
and what was delivered were radically different, a huge disappointment.
Still, Microsoft had cowed all of the OEMs, even IBM, into shutting
down all considerations of alternatives, even Red Hat Linux, which was
being offered as a nonexclusive upgrade (could be shipped along with
Windows in dual-boot configuration), for $2 per copy in any quantity
over 1,000 units.
> Sadly for
> your chances, MS Windows just seems to get better and better every version
> and next to no one seems to ever convert to linux because of any dislike for
> Windows. No one except the silly little wannabes who seem to think it
> fashionable to be contrarians, of course. But who cares?
Microsoft announced Longhorn to keep people from defecting from XP.
Many corporate customers signed 3-year contracts on the promise of
getting Longhorn. Most of those contracts are about to expire. In the
meantime, Longhorn has gone from being a lot of bull, to being a steer.
They renamed it Vista to let us know that it's just a mirage,
generated with a lot of smoke and mirrors. There is almost nothing
there that enhances the productivity of workers, and a lot that will
actually LOWER their productivity. There is little more than a Game
Machine and an Ipod being added. The promises seem to have been
ignored, and what we are left with is yet another buggy, bloated,
insecure, unreliable, unstable, and undesirable piece of Bloatware that
provides impressive "eye candy" and creates more problems than it
solves.
Meanwhile Linux has actually delivered most of the features promised in
Longhorn (actually, Linux already had them, and now they have gone
beyond that), and companies like SUSE have even provided some nice eye
candy for XGL (X11 with OpenGL). Windows emulation of previous
platforms is often better than that provided by Vista, even on 64 bit
platforms, and Linux has the ability to very effeciently support
virtual machine technology such as VMWare, Xen, UML, and Bochs.
Microsoft's XP fights for all of the available memory and gives it up
to VMs very reluctantly, making it very undesirable as the "Host"
operating system in a "Multimode" environment.
If Microsoft doesn't "Play Nice" with Linux when Vista is released, it
will be "Hasta La Vista Vista".
Ray Ingles
>> Just hope you don't get a message that exploits a flaw like this.
> I install patches automatically, ray.
But you can't patch a flaw if the patch for it hasn't been released.
I specifically said a flaw "like" the one I pointed out. You're
*positive* there aren't more in there?
> I don't read mail that doesn't come from someone on my address book list,
> ray. And I don't preview anything.
Riiight. Of course not. You've adjusted your behavior to compensate for
the flaws in Windows. I assume you believe everyone should? How many do
you think have?
I don't have to forego that sort of thing on Linux. Which operating
system allows people to do what they want again?
>> Oh, no, Linux *can* and *does* do all the stuff legitimate users want
>> to do. It just doesn't support the bad guys doing the things *they* want
>> to do. Important distinction, which you pretend not to notice.
>>
> Well, you may not have a large enough view, ray.
Not that you've attempted to supply any rationale or example of any
other...
>> As has already been noted, that's not true, as open-source clients like
>> Tunderbird have built-in adaptive spam filters.
>>
> Doesn't work worth spit, ray. I've tried it.
But I thought you didn't get spam... how odd.
> Didn't affect me, ray. Anyone planning on sending such things to cause harm
> might reflect on the penalty to be paid if they are ever caught. With
> routers keeping logs and such, it may not be that hard to find the hacker if
> the damage is severe enough to warrant a prosecution.
Wow, that's impressively disingenuous. It doesn't matter if the router
logs the source of the spam - that "source" is almost always a
compromised Windows machine acting as a remote-controlled zombie by the
spammer. It's amazing that you'd pretend not to know that. Who do you
expect to fool?
> Go on wishing and hoping, ray! Perhaps it will brighten your day. But
> consider that the only hope linux advocates seem to have is for Microsoft to
> eventually chuck so badly that people will have no alternative.
How about actually replying to my other message, where I describe, in
detail, why that's just wrong?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6dd70d3fa7087035
> and next to no one seems to ever convert to linux because of any dislike for
> Windows.
Dislike for Windows is a lot more common than you are willing to admit.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2918048170624184517&q=letterman+gates
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?"
- Woody Allen
Oliver Wong
Some of the software Microsoft distributes is licensed under GPL.
http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2001-September/001850.html
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9006356588.html
- Oliver
JEDIDIAH
>
> "Oliver Wong" <ow...@castortech.com> wrote in message
> news:rT0Dg.2342$395.456@edtnps90...
>>
>>
>> That's not strictly true, as it depends on the DRM implementation.
>>
> You have the bull by the wrong horn, ollie! Using DRM to prevent copying is
> an action taken by the content producer and is a legitimate term and
> condition of sale. If you do not like the terms, you will not buy their
No it isn't.
A copyrighted work EXISTS to be copied, if not now then in
the future when it is time for the author to pay us his due. NO
copyright should ever be granted when there is no work accessable
to be copied by any librarian or monk that cared to do so.
THAT is theft.
[deletia]
--
Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-08-13, billwg <bil...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> Just hope you don't get a message that exploits a flaw like this.
>
>> I install patches automatically, ray.
>
> But you can't patch a flaw if the patch for it hasn't been released.
> I specifically said a flaw "like" the one I pointed out. You're
> *positive* there aren't more in there?
>
way with hackers. Who's going to bother with me anyway?
>> I don't read mail that doesn't come from someone on my address book list,
>> ray. And I don't preview anything.
>
> Riiight. Of course not. You've adjusted your behavior to compensate for
> the flaws in Windows. I assume you believe everyone should? How many do
> you think have?
>
I've adjusted my email behavior to compensate for the spammers, ray. I
suspect that you have to do the same thing regardless of OS platform.
> I don't have to forego that sort of thing on Linux. Which operating
> system allows people to do what they want again?
>
>>> Oh, no, Linux *can* and *does* do all the stuff legitimate users want
>>> to do. It just doesn't support the bad guys doing the things *they* want
>>> to do. Important distinction, which you pretend not to notice.
>>>
>> Well, you may not have a large enough view, ray.
>
> Not that you've attempted to supply any rationale or example of any
> other...
>
VBA, ray, VBA.More people still using that than Java or even .NET.
>>> As has already been noted, that's not true, as open-source clients like
>>> Tunderbird have built-in adaptive spam filters.
>>>
>> Doesn't work worth spit, ray. I've tried it.
>
> But I thought you didn't get spam... how odd.
>
Where did I say that, ray? I get plenty of it. Maybe not as much as in
past years, but plenty of it. I used Thunderbird heavy duty for a period of
time, even thought about fixing the stupid newsreader threading, but decided
that my way was easier on everyone.
>> Didn't affect me, ray. Anyone planning on sending such things to cause
>> harm
>> might reflect on the penalty to be paid if they are ever caught. With
>> routers keeping logs and such, it may not be that hard to find the hacker
>> if
>> the damage is severe enough to warrant a prosecution.
>
> Wow, that's impressively disingenuous. It doesn't matter if the router
> logs the source of the spam - that "source" is almost always a
> compromised Windows machine acting as a remote-controlled zombie by the
> spammer. It's amazing that you'd pretend not to know that. Who do you
> expect to fool?
>
Oh there have been a few hackers put in the clink in the recent past and
more to follow, I am sure. I think there are some new laws too, courtesy of
the Patriot Act, that make things even more painful. Given that there isn't
much more reward than the thrill of defacing something involved, a few
hackers ravaged by the real sociopaths in the pens will give pause to the
rest and soothe the ire of the hacked!
>> Go on wishing and hoping, ray! Perhaps it will brighten your day. But
>> consider that the only hope linux advocates seem to have is for Microsoft
>> to
>> eventually chuck so badly that people will have no alternative.
>
> How about actually replying to my other message, where I describe, in
> detail, why that's just wrong?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6dd70d3fa7087035
>
I don't see where that post has anything to do with the above assertion,
ray.
>> and next to no one seems to ever convert to linux because of any dislike
>> for
>> Windows.
>
> Dislike for Windows is a lot more common than you are willing to admit.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2918048170624184517&q=letterman+gates
>
Hillarious, ray, thanks for the link! But people can laugh all they want
and will still buy a Windows computer the next time they are in the market.
People do want a better Windows, I have no doubt, but it has to be a better
Windows, not a cheap imitation. That is where you miss the boat.
billwg
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:6iu6r3-...@nomad.mishnet...
>
> No it isn't.
>
> A copyrighted work EXISTS to be copied, if not now then in
> the future when it is time for the author to pay us his due. NO
> copyright should ever be granted when there is no work accessable
> to be copied by any librarian or monk that cared to do so.
>
> THAT is theft.
>
to thwart copying. Period. Nothing in there about copyright. That may be
even more of a block, but the issue was DRM. It's like pay per view TV. No
pay, no view.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Bn8Eg.562$Tg1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrnee13pg....@localhost.localdomain...
>> On 2006-08-13, billwg <bil...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>> Just hope you don't get a message that exploits a flaw like this.
>>
>>> I install patches automatically, ray.
>>
>> But you can't patch a flaw if the patch for it hasn't been released.
>> I specifically said a flaw "like" the one I pointed out. You're
>> *positive* there aren't more in there?
>>
> Big sky, little airplane, ray. Not much chance of a collision, eh? Same
> way with hackers. Who's going to bother with me anyway?
Who indeed? The auto-probers don't care *who* you are;
they simply probe for weaknesses. If they find one,
they attack, and leave your system a zombie, awaiting
instructions from the mothership, probably for a DDoS
attack. A virus may also be installed on your system to
do more autoprobing, creating more zombies.
I doubt they do much to you since you keep your Windows
system up to date patchwise -- at least, I hope that is
the case. (They don't do all that much to me since I
use Linux.)
>
>>> I don't read mail that doesn't come from someone on my address book list,
>>> ray. And I don't preview anything.
>>
>> Riiight. Of course not. You've adjusted your behavior to compensate for
>> the flaws in Windows. I assume you believe everyone should? How many do
>> you think have?
>>
> I've adjusted my email behavior to compensate for the spammers, ray. I
> suspect that you have to do the same thing regardless of OS platform.
It's less of an issue on Linux email viewers.
Windows viewer: *Click* You're infected!
Linux viewer: *Click* to download.
*Click* -- oh, I get a text editor? Isn't this thing a picture?
This is oversimplifying it by quite a bit of course.
>
>> I don't have to forego that sort of thing on Linux. Which operating
>> system allows people to do what they want again?
>>
>>>> Oh, no, Linux *can* and *does* do all the stuff legitimate users want
>>>> to do. It just doesn't support the bad guys doing the things *they* want
>>>> to do. Important distinction, which you pretend not to notice.
>>>>
>>> Well, you may not have a large enough view, ray.
>>
>> Not that you've attempted to supply any rationale or example of any
>> other...
>>
> VBA, ray, VBA.More people still using that than Java or even .NET.
As they should. VB is a rapid prototyping environment that works
extremely well for small projects. Gambas is a Linux equivalent,
which might be of some use to Basic programmers. (I've forgotten
most of my Basic and in any event the language has mutated so much
I barely remember the API. :-) )
suggests Visual Basic is 3rd and advancing fast at 11.195% (up
3.44% since last year), compared to Java's 22.377%.
There is probably a Python RAD tool wandering around out
there but I'd have to find it. Google suggests PythonCard,
wxDesigner, and Boa Constructor.
http://awaretek.com/atesterea.html
is a silly little page that tries to match one's desires with program
languages. So far, I get Python, Java, PHP, or C, and would quibble on
"speed of program execution" (it says C but Java can be faster at
times).
Interestingly, "ease of using the language" yields C#, if everything
else is set to zero. However, Python, Ruby, PHP, and Javascript are
also tied at 10000. Visual Basic shows up if one sets "quality of
available tools" to 100 and everything else to 0, which makes sense;
Microsoft makes reasonably good tools. However, if I set cross-platform
availability to 100 VB scores a measly -- 100. C/C++ scores 12000;
C# scores 500; Lisp/Scheme scores 9000; everything else is tied at
10000.
If all are set to 0 Lisp pops out, which probably could be taken as a
philosophical statement of some sort. :-) I should note that "power and
expressiveness" ranks Lisp second to C/C++ (12000 versus 12500).
[snip for brevity]
>>> and next to no one seems to ever convert to linux because of any dislike
>>> for Windows.
>>
>> Dislike for Windows is a lot more common than you are willing to admit.
>>
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2918048170624184517&q=letterman+gates
>>
> Hillarious, ray, thanks for the link! But people can laugh all they want
> and will still buy a Windows computer the next time they are in the market.
> People do want a better Windows, I have no doubt, but it has to be a better
> Windows, not a cheap imitation. That is where you miss the boat.
>
Windows Vista is a better Windows. It should sell reasonably well,
mostly because Linux can't gain any traction in the desktop market.
Of course it depends on whether everyone wants to get higher-powered
hardware or not.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Mark Kent
billwg <bil...@microsoft.com> espoused:
>
> "Mark Kent" <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:luu5r3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>
>> The following is from a real windows advocate, posting off-topic into
>> the linux group:
>>
>> billwg <bil...@microsoft.com> espoused:
>>> I don't read mail that doesn't come from someone on my address book list,
>>> ray. And I don't preview anything. If you want to catch my attention,
>>> you
>>> have to get your message into the subject line.
>>>
>>
>> Clearly, this is the kind of environment which windows users are
>> unfortunate enough to have to live in, and one has to feel rather sorry
>> for them. Linux, on the other hand, offers a fully flexible user
>> experience when handling email - no reason to panic or be nervous about
>> previewing, or restricting messages to those from people who've already
>> sent you one.
>>
> Hey, clark!
yawn.
> Did your plonker break?
Not at all, you nymshifted again. Don't worry, though, I'm regexing you
this time. That said, your problems involving using email on Windows
offer such a good example of why the FLOSS solutions are superior that I
thought I'd repeat it. My favourite bit is the one where you say that
anyone emailing you has to get their message into the /subject/ line.
Wow. Linux has no such problems.
<snip noise>
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
The way to a man's heart is through the left ventricle.
Ray Ingles
> Big sky, little airplane, ray. Not much chance of a collision, eh? Same
> way with hackers. Who's going to bother with me anyway?
Worms don't care who you are. That's kinda their whole point,
automating the spread of the malware so humans don't have to manage it.
> I've adjusted my email behavior to compensate for the spammers, ray. I
> suspect that you have to do the same thing regardless of OS platform.
Nope. My mail reader doesn't run with all kinds of unneeded privileges,
and doesn't execute code without asking me first. I actually *said*
that:
>> I don't have to forego that sort of thing on Linux.
Quoting back to you: "read for comprehension".
> VBA, ray, VBA.More people still using that than Java or even .NET.
For small, one-off programs that take little time to develop and can
easily be replaced or rewritten, yes. So what?
> Given that there isn't
> much more reward than the thrill of defacing something involved
Oh, you're claiming that again? Let's save time, here's where I
corrected you before on that:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/309867a1d7e4a5f9
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c5adc7f942c8e073
Again, who are you trying to fool? Certainly not anyone with any
experience...
http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=4002
http://www.virusbtn.com/conference/vb2006/abstracts/Lovet.xml
http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2006/07/
deceptonomics_a_glance_at_the.html
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6dd70d3fa7087035
>>
> I don't see where that post has anything to do with the above assertion,
> ray.
Yeah, it's not that you don't have any answer to the points therein, of
course.
>> Dislike for Windows is a lot more common than you are willing to admit.
>>
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2918048170624184517&q=letterman+gates
>>
> Hillarious, ray, thanks for the link! But people can laugh all they want
> and will still buy a Windows computer the next time they are in the market.
People joked about the American car companies before the onslaught of
the imports, and people joked about the AT&T monopoly before the breakup
led to telecommunications competition.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76aphonecompany.phtml
It's just a sign of pent up pressure - a bit of publicity regarding OS
alternatives will yeild a *lot* of results, and my arguments linked to
above help to show why the transition will happen more easily than you
pretend. It worked with, say, Firefox - essentially zero formal
advertising and IE is on a sharp decline, even though it comes with most
machines.
No, I'm not saying that this year, or the next, will be the Year Of The
Linux Desktop. It'll just grow at a steady pace, like Linux has done and
contiues to do in servers, until it's an important market factor than
can't be ignored, just like Linux currently is in servers.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The penalty for 'hacking' this system is $500,000 and 5 years in prison.
That's right. If you figure out a clever way to play an MP3 file on your
TCPA machine, you're eligible for more time than a drunk driver that
killed someone is." - Craig Kelley, on the Trusted Computing initiative
Rex Ballard
> <bil...@microsoft.com>
> wrote
> on Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:16:33 GMT
> <Bn8Eg.562$Tg1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
> >
> > way with hackers. Who's going to bother with me anyway?
Actually, there are many hackers who have earned "bragging rights" by
finding, and fixing "security holes" in Linux. I've heard that one
company in Redmond was even offering a bounty for reports of security
holes that could be published, but you would know more about that than
I.
Of course, most of these security holes are actually unexploitable. It
would require that the user or administrator deliberately connect as
root, enable rsh or rlogin, set hosts.equiv to *, and start the rlogin
deamon in a special way. Of course, after doing all that, I'd be about
as secure as a Windows 98 machine or Windows XP machine with Fat32 file
system and ANYONE could access ANY file with almost no effort at all.
WINS would even tell me where to look.
> Who indeed? The auto-probers don't care *who* you are;
> they simply probe for weaknesses. If they find one,
> they attack, and leave your system a zombie, awaiting
> instructions from the mothership, probably for a DDoS
> attack. A virus may also be installed on your system to
> do more autoprobing, creating more zombies.
The only successful virus to infect Linux in any large scale was the
Lion virus, it successfully infected about 8,000 computers out of an
estimated 8 million that were attempted. Of those 8,000, all were
improperly configured as a result of wilfully ignoring warnings the
user would have had to read. Most of these hosts were being run by a
few ISPs. My guess is that someone at one of the companies had taught
bad habits to the others, but that's just speculation.
That particular virus required a system to allow a script in the
cgi-bin directory to transfer files transferred to an anonymous FTP
directory into the cgi-bin directory and set execution permissions and
change ownership to root, then the cgi-bin program could be executed
using a web browser. Any competent Linux administrator or UNIX
admnistrator should be laughing out loud now.
> >>> I don't read mail that doesn't come from someone on my address book list,
> >>> ray. And I don't preview anything.
> >>
> > I've adjusted my email behavior to compensate for the spammers, ray. I
> > suspect that you have to do the same thing regardless of OS platform.
>
> It's less of an issue on Linux email viewers.
>
> Windows viewer: *Click* You're infected!
> Linux viewer: *Click* to download.
> *Click* -- oh, I get a text editor? Isn't this thing a picture?
>
> > VBA, ray, VBA.More people still using that than Java or even .NET.
>
> As they should. VB is a rapid prototyping environment that works
> extremely well for small projects. Gambas is a Linux equivalent,
> which might be of some use to Basic programmers. (I've forgotten
> most of my Basic and in any event the language has mutated so much
> I barely remember the API. :-) )
>
> http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm
>
> suggests Visual Basic is 3rd and advancing fast at 11.195% (up
> 3.44% since last year), compared to Java's 22.377%.
Interesting Survey, Java, C, C++, PHP, PERL, and Python, all primarily
Linux/Unix development technologies which can be used to create
cross-platform technologies gets almost 68% of the mindshare. Gambas
and OO support VB and suddenly it gets an increase.
One of the advantages of programming to the OSS APIs is that you can
create applications that will run on Windows AND Linux AND OS/X AND
Solaris AND AIX AND HP_UX. When you program .NET in Visual Studio, you
get programs that run on Windows XP and MAYBE Windows 2003
(multithreading can be such a killer on servers).
> There is probably a Python RAD tool wandering around out
> there but I'd have to find it. Google suggests PythonCard,
> wxDesigner, and Boa Constructor.
I wonder if there's an eclipse plug-in? There seems to be one for
everything else.
One of the advantages of Linux virtual desktops is that I don't NEED a
special custom monolithic MDI application to give me the panels. I can
select a desktop and have the editor's of my choice (vi or emacs),
shell windows with compilers, and emacs/gdb windows all open at the
same time. I've used emacs/gdb for a long time, and sdb before that.
IDEs don't help much when your are debugging system code or server
code.
Eclipse is beginning to look more and more like 21st century emacs.
One of the great things about emacs was that there were all of these
additional functions beyond the text editor. For those of us who were
limited to ANSII terminals or terminal emulation to unix, emacs was our
"Windows", of course, we had "windows" back in 1983 (actually I think
they date back to about 1978), along with explorer (dired), calender,
email, and news reader. It would even plug into RCS or SCCS.
> http://awaretek.com/atesterea.html
>
> is a silly little page that tries to match one's desires with program
> languages. So far, I get Python, Java, PHP, or C, and would quibble on
> "speed of program execution" (it says C but Java can be faster at
> times).
It really depends on how the benchmark is constructed. In tight loops,
Perl, Java, and C are all extremely fast, because Java JIT compiles the
byte-code into optimized machine code, Perl has compled the code just
before execution started, and C may have defensive code to make
libraries thread-safe and other "overhead" which make the "real-world"
programs slower than "laboratory benchmarks".
> Interestingly, "ease of using the language" yields C#, if everything
> else is set to zero. However, Python, Ruby, PHP, and Javascript are
> also tied at 10000. Visual Basic shows up if one sets "quality of
> available tools" to 100 and everything else to 0, which makes sense;
> Microsoft makes reasonably good tools. However, if I set cross-platform
> availability to 100 VB scores a measly -- 100. C/C++ scores 12000;
> C# scores 500; Lisp/Scheme scores 9000; everything else is tied at
> 10000.
The combination of the two surveys speaks volumes. Clearly, developers
are refusing to paint themselves into the single-platform corner. An
additional 5% of development effort in the short term gives access to
all platforms, including Windows, Linux, OS/X, and Unux.
> >> Dislike for Windows is a lot more common than you are willing to admit.
> >>
> >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2918048170624184517&q=letterman+gates
> >>
> > Hillarious, ray, thanks for the link! But people can laugh all they want
> > and will still buy a Windows computer the next time they are in the market.
Perhaps that's because it's impossible for them to walk into CompUSA,
or even Sears or Walmart, and step up to a computer that is fully
configured for Linux. Microsoft sells directly to the OEMS and
requires that all machines be advertized, shipped, and displayed with
Windows exclusively.
On the other hand, most retail shelf display units indicate that
customers are testing machines with LiveCDs such as Knoppix, Ubuntu, or
SUSE LiveCD. This would indicate that some number of people are
purchasing Windows machines for the express purpose of doing an
after-market conversion to Linux.
They could buy a "White Box" machine (roughly 30% of all PCs sold
world-wide are sold without ANY operating system and are called "white
boxes"), which are almost all configured to run Linux (many are even
Windows hostile). In spite of Microsoft's claims that these machines
are only used by pirates, they have not found a significant number of
white-box machines running pirated Windows.
But there are many good reasons why an end-user might want to buy a
Linux Ready machine with Windows preinstalled. They know it works.
They can test it with the LiveCD to make sure it will run with Linux.
They can use installation media to reinstall Windows into a VM after
they have made Linux the primary operating system. They can run
Windows under Bochs, or they can configure a dual-boot machine.
There are indicators that there are as many Linux systems being
deployed as there are Windows systems being sold. There are also
indicators, such as the popularity of 64 bit processors, dual-core
processors, >2G memory configurations, and OpenGL optimized video
cards, that indicate that most of these machines are being converted to
Linux as the primary operating system almost immediately after they are
purchased, by the end user, or someone acting on his behalf.
> > People do want a better Windows, I have no doubt, but it has to be a better
> > Windows, not a cheap imitation. That is where you miss the boat.
"Better" is such a subjective thing. Microsoft would have us believe
that more eye-candy, pop-ups, spyware, and the ability to spread
viruses even faster, makes a computer "Better".
Linux users believe that immunity to viruses, damage control measures,
auditing, and the ability to run weeks or months without rebooting
(rebooting is only necessary when a major kernel upgrade is required,
which isn't that often) is better.
If you passion for a PC is Video Games, Internet Pornography, and 3D
simulations of pornography, then you probably lean toward Microsoft's
point of view.
If if you passion for a PC is communication, documents that will be
preserved and archived for extended periods of time and can be easily
located, collaboration with other users in real-time, access to
critical information required for making critical decisions in
near-real-time, then you are probably leaning toward the Linux point of
view.
> Windows Vista is a better Windows. It should sell reasonably well,
> mostly because Linux can't gain any traction in the desktop market.
This is almost true. Vista will sell well because Microsoft will
continue to strong-arm OEMS into shipping Vista exclusively with every
machine they sell. Even when the machine isn't designed to run Vista,
the OEMs will install it, because they don't want Microsoft to revoke
their licenses on the machines sold by their Vista custotmers.
On the other hand, it's pretty clear that Novell is working very hard
to cultivate a very healthy relationship with HP and possibly Lennovo.
They are helping OEMs to create very powerrful Linux machines which can
be converted to Linux in as little as 30 minutes, using a single DVD
and a minimal amount of configuration effort. Users can choose their
desktop platform, including SUSE, Linspire, or Ubuntu, but regardless
of the platform chosen, Linux will perform better on this new hardware
than Windows or Vista will.
> Of course it depends on whether everyone wants to get higher-powered
> hardware or not.
There is demand for higher-powered hardware, as demonstrated by the
demand for single and dual-core 64 bit processors, FireGL 3D cards, and
>2 gig memory configurations. The irony is that NONE of these features can be exploited by Windows XP or Vista with the current applications available.
On the other hand, I have already installed 64 bit Linux and a full
suite of 64 bit applications on my AMD-64 machines. OpenOffice may not
have every "bell and whistle" of Microsoft Office, but it's good enough
for most work, it's easily archived an searched, and it comes in 64 bit
versions for 64 bit Linux.
Business and Corporate decision makers now have to begin to ask
themselves, "Do I want to spend tens of thousands of dollars per user
over the next 10 years to get the features that Microsoft has promised
in Vista, or do I want to spend a few thousand dollars to transition
those users that is available here and now, and is improving at a
radically faster rate than Windows.
What manager can look at the decisions to remain with Windows since
1992, in the hope that Microsoft would eventually deliver a "Better
Unix than Unix", only to have to try and explain 14 years of delays and
disappointments while Solaris, Linux, and OS/X provided the things that
BUSINESSES care about, productivity, low cost, reliability, security,
and compatibility with the rest of the IT Infrastructure, along with
constantly improving applications at very low cost.
Do you go to your CEO and tell him that he has to lay off ANOTHER 20%
of the work force so that the company can pay for all of the hardware
and software upgrades to Vista immediately, and pay for the immediate
contract?
Or do you go to your CEO and tell him that you have a way to increase
productivity by 20-40% while saving as much as 80% in license, support,
and administration costs by converting the Linux-Ready machines you
have been purchasing for the last 3 years to Linux?
Or, do you give them side-by-side demonstrations of Vista Betas next to
fully configured SUSE Linux, both on AMD-64 machines, and let them take
some time to choose for themselves?
At this point, as long as you don't drop a "dead fish" on their desk
(put a freebie downloaded LiveCD and have them run it on a machine
which may not be as Linux friendly as the one you were thinking of, you
have a pretty good chance of tipping the entire company into the Linux
camp.
JEDIDIAH
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:6iu6r3-...@nomad.mishnet...
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>> A copyrighted work EXISTS to be copied, if not now then in
>> the future when it is time for the author to pay us his due. NO
>> copyright should ever be granted when there is no work accessable
>> to be copied by any librarian or monk that cared to do so.
>>
>> THAT is theft.
>>
> You out of Prozac again, jedidiah? DRM is intended by the content provider
> to thwart copying. Period. Nothing in there about copyright. That may be
...which is in direct opposition to the stated legal justification
for copyright.
> even more of a block, but the issue was DRM. It's like pay per view TV. No
> pay, no view.
That is irrelevant.
Copyright is not a virtual land grab.
--
Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,
is genuinely new: culture, like science and |||
technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \
building on the works of those that came before.
Judge Alex Kozinski
US Court of Appeals
9th Circuit