The stupidest thing overheard on usenet
Jeffrey Fulmer
(web...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
: Who cares if Win95/NT is bloated? Modern processors are lightening
fast
: and memory is dirt cheap!!
Edwin E. Thorne
Jeffrey Fulmer <jfu...@whiteoaknet.com> wrote in article
<355063A6...@whiteoaknet.com>...
Actually, it is Microsoft's code bloat that fueled the demand for faster
processors and larger memory.
The HP Unix boxes where I work can hold their own against Windoze machines,
and the HP's are five year old 50 MHz boxes.
Jim Lewis
Jeffrey Fulmer <jfu...@whiteoaknet.com> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------4D5FD9D4C0F373D2C4E1B91D
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>In message <354FC1...@globaldialog.com>, Jim Mueller
>(web...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
>: Who cares if Win95/NT is bloated? Modern processors are lightening
>fast
>: and memory is dirt cheap!!
>
This remark is really amazingly ignorant. It can't be a true
expression of your understanding of what quality software design and
implementation entail. Can it?
Jim Lewis
Phil
> > In message <>, Jim Mueller
> > (web...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
> > : Who cares if Win95/NT is bloated? Modern processors are lightening
> > fast
> > : and memory is dirt cheap!
>
> processors and larger memory.
Faster processors and larger memory were always going to happen. But there
is no reason why micro$oft has to write bloatware (e.g. CrashHappy95).
I read that micro$oft had a proposal with Intel, that Micro$oft was going
to write code that only Intel processors could process. For these reasons
micro$oft are bastards.
As you all know there are better OSs around. Unfortunately we have an
insane IT bloke here so I'm using CrashHappy95. :)
---
Views expressed here are mine.
If you agree or disagree with them please download EMAIL.EXE from:
http://www.flexi.net.au/~acelogix/emailexe/index.htm
*giggle* *giggle* *giggle* *giggle* *giggle* *thud*
Win95 evolved from a better operating system (NT). Since evolution is
chance, win95 is obviously crap.
Robin
In article <01bd7919$a1ef4dc0$c074...@edwint.rauland.com>, "Edwin E.
Thorne" <edwin....@rauland.com> wrote:
> Jeffrey Fulmer <jfu...@whiteoaknet.com> wrote in article
> <355063A6...@whiteoaknet.com>...
> > In message <354FC1...@globaldialog.com>, Jim Mueller
> > (web...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
> > : Who cares if Win95/NT is bloated? Modern processors are lightening
> > fast
> > : and memory is dirt cheap!!
>
> Actually, it is Microsoft's code bloat that fueled the demand for faster
> processors and larger memory.
Yes! As I suspected, M$ is responsible for today's faster processors.
Without them creating the demand for faster processors to run their
shitware, all of us would still be toiling away on 50MHz machines with 4
MB of RAM and 20MB hard drives. Long live M$!...:)
>
> The HP Unix boxes where I work can hold their own against Windoze machines,
> and the HP's are five year old 50 MHz boxes.
Is that bad?...:)
Morbius
Edwin E. Thorne
Phil <akjtelkjt|@asdkf.slkdf> wrote:
> > > In message <>, Jim Mueller
> > > (web...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
> > > : Who cares if Win95/NT is bloated? Modern processors are lightening
> > > fast
> > > : and memory is dirt cheap!
> >
> > Actually, it is Microsoft's code bloat that fueled the demand for faster
> > processors and larger memory.
>
> Faster processors and larger memory were always going to happen.
Agreed. But use of M$ bloatware accelerated the process. Faster
processors and bigger memory is what kept Windows viable (or what passes
for viable in the Wintel World).
Look how long Amiga owners stuck with A500s and A1200s, many that didn't
even have a hard drive. If all OSes were that efficient, we'd have seen
the demand for HDs, RAM, and faster processors grow much more slowly,
and in a smaller segment of the total market.
.
> But there
> is no reason why micro$oft has to write bloatware (e.g. CrashHappy95).
> I read that micro$oft had a proposal with Intel, that Micro$oft was going
> to write code that only Intel processors could process. For these reasons
> micro$oft are bastards.
I agree.
> As you all know there are better OSs around. Unfortunately we have an
> insane IT bloke here so I'm using CrashHappy95. :)
That variety of insanity must be very contagious amongst IT personal.
It's spread all around the globe. I sure hope they find a cure soon.
;-)
> ---
> Views expressed here are mine.
> If you agree or disagree with them please download EMAIL.EXE from:
> http://www.flexi.net.au/~acelogix/emailexe/index.htm
>
> *giggle* *giggle* *giggle* *giggle* *giggle* *thud*
>
> Win95 evolved from a better operating system (NT). Since evolution is
> chance, win95 is obviously crap.
As a reluctant Win 95 user, I completely agree.
Edwin
------------------------------------------------
Created on an Apple Macintosh Performa 6400/180
Edwin E. Thorne
Robin <nos...@deleteyou.net> wrote:
> In article <01bd7919$a1ef4dc0$c074...@edwint.rauland.com>, "Edwin E.
> Thorne" <edwin....@rauland.com> wrote:
>
> > Jeffrey Fulmer <jfu...@whiteoaknet.com> wrote in article
> > <355063A6...@whiteoaknet.com>...
> > > In message <354FC1...@globaldialog.com>, Jim Mueller
> > > (web...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
> > > : Who cares if Win95/NT is bloated? Modern processors are lightening
> > > fast
> > > : and memory is dirt cheap!!
> >
> > Actually, it is Microsoft's code bloat that fueled the demand for faster
> > processors and larger memory.
>
> Yes! As I suspected, M$ is responsible for today's faster processors.
> Without them creating the demand for faster processors to run their
> shitware, all of us would still be toiling away on 50MHz machines with 4
> MB of RAM and 20MB hard drives. Long live M$!...:)
For most users, this would be true. Both Amiga and Apple produced
machines with slower processors, less RAM and smaller HDs than Wintel
boxes had, for years. They could do more with less, but the general
public didn't realize this. So Apple was drawn into the speed game
too. Amiga resisted this trend, but ultimately failed, in spite of
hardware, OS, and application program technical superiority.
The guiding philosophy used to be to optimize your code as much as
possible. But that takes assembly level programming which increases
your time to market. If your chief competitor is churning out
bloatware, and the hardware market is covering for it with constant
upgrades, you are drawn into that game whether you like it or not.
> >
> > The HP Unix boxes where I work can hold their own against Windoze machines,
> > and the HP's are five year old 50 MHz boxes.
>
> Is that bad?...:)
>
Not at all. It is a mark of their superiority over Windoze boxes. We
have Unix servers running at 50 MHz that hold their own against new
Pentium boxes. In some ways they even BEAT the Pentium boxes.
> Morbius
Edwin.
Phil
> > > : Who cares if Win95/NT is bloated? Modern processors are lightening
> > > fast
> > > : and memory is dirt cheap!!
> >
> > Actually, it is Microsoft's code bloat that fueled the demand for
faster
> > processors and larger memory.
>
> Yes! As I suspected, M$ is responsible for today's faster processors.
> Without them creating the demand for faster processors to run their
> shitware, all of us would still be toiling away on 50MHz machines with 4
> MB of RAM and 20MB hard drives. Long live M$!...:)
Up yours if you are being sarcastic. :) Computers have been developing
for decades before Micro$oft came into existence. Micro$oft's crappy
operating systems and applications waste huge CPU and memory resources.
You know that :)
Jeff Read
Phil wrote:
> Up yours if you are being sarcastic. :) Computers have been developing
> for decades before Micro$oft came into existence. Micro$oft's crappy
> operating systems and applications waste huge CPU and memory resources.
Bill Gates prides himself on being the first man ever to write code for
a microcomputer. If what he believes in his dream world were in fact the
truth, then all microcomputing developments, hardware and software
alike, could have their origins traced back to Microsoft.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Read <bit...@geocities.com>/ http://genpc.home.ml.org
Unix / Linux / Windows Hacker, / Boycott Microsoft!
Anime & Sonic Fan, / Use Linux/GNU!
All Around Nice Guy / Let's keep the Net and the Land FREE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
M Rassbach
Edwin E. Thorne wrote:
> For most users, this would be true. Both Amiga and Apple produced
> machines with slower processors, less RAM and smaller HDs than Wintel
> boxes had, for years. They could do more with less, but the general
> public didn't realize this.
A word processor, spread sheet, email, web browsing, call management, name
management, appointment management, graphing of data, graphic drawing,
fax-capable.All in 12 meg of memory. And a processor that runs like a 75 Mhz
Pentium.
And the slower version is still a 'viable product offering of Apple'.
> > > The HP Unix boxes where I work can hold their own against Windoze machines,
> > > and the HP's are five year old 50 MHz boxes.
> >
> > Is that bad?...:)
> >
> Not at all. It is a mark of their superiority over Windoze boxes.
And Macintoshes too.
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <35511D1F...@stevens-tech.edu>,
Jeff Read <bit...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Phil wrote:
>
>> Up yours if you are being sarcastic. :) Computers have been developing
>> for decades before Micro$oft came into existence. Micro$oft's crappy
>> operating systems and applications waste huge CPU and memory resources.
>
>Bill Gates prides himself on being the first man ever to write code for
>a microcomputer. If what he believes in his dream world were in fact the
>truth, then all microcomputing developments, hardware and software
>alike, could have their origins traced back to Microsoft.
Um... I believe he's the first man ever to *sell* code for a
microcomputer. There's a difference.
--
Stay alert! Trust no one! Keep your laser handy! The Computer is
your Friend!
VHA PC Development
Jim Lewis <pojpl@_ais.ucla.edu> wrote in article
<3550cddf...@news.ucla.edu>...
> Jeffrey Fulmer <jfu...@whiteoaknet.com> wrote:
>
> >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >--------------4D5FD9D4C0F373D2C4E1B91D
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> >fast
> >: and memory is dirt cheap!!
> >
>
> expression of your understanding of what quality software design and
> implementation entail. Can it?
> Jim Lewis
It can. You can't turn everyone into a system admin! Let 'em play with
their toys and we'll just charge 'em to fix the high priced ware.
--
=======================================
cod...@airmail.NOSPAM.net
bgra...@vha.NOSPAM.com
=======================================
My opinions are mine alone - though others may borrow...
invalid address
> >Bill Gates prides himself on being the first man ever to write code for
> >a microcomputer.
Well if he prides himself on that then he's fooled himself and is a
complete liar. What about C/PM he stole? There were other kinds of
microcomputer code.
> Um... I believe he's the first man ever to *sell* code for a
> microcomputer. There's a difference.
Yes: sell pirated microcomputer code. What an achievement.
---
Do you hate or agree with this reply? Two steps:
1. Go here and download the zip:
http://www.flexi.net.au/~acelogix/emailexe/index.htm
2. Send email to joh...@hotmail.com
Andy Walton
In article <01bd7a4b$47ce9a20$1800...@DevTest.greenspan.com.au>, "invalid
address" <1@1.1> wrote:
:> >Bill Gates prides himself on being the first man ever to write code for
:> >a microcomputer.
:
:Well if he prides himself on that then he's fooled himself and is a
:complete liar. What about C/PM he stole? There were other kinds of
:microcomputer code.
The code he wrote predates CP/M. He wrote the first BASIC for the Altair
-- arguably the first commercial software ever on a microcomputer. He and
Paul Allen marketed it when Microsoft was a garage operation, way before
the QDOS/IBM deal. Gates was also the first person to bitch about software
piracy, in the Homebrew computer club newsletter. The Altair BASIC was
distributed on widely-duplicated punched tape.
The Altair BASIC was his own work. It may have been many years since Bill
wrote any code, but in his day, he was pretty damned good at it. He's more
accomplished at dealmaking than he ever was at coding, but give the man
his due.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You come to see what you want to see
You come to see, but you never come to know." --Kinky Friedman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Edwin E. Thorne
Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<atticus-0805...@user-38lcb2o.dialup.mindspring.com>...
> In article <01bd7a4b$47ce9a20$1800...@DevTest.greenspan.com.au>,
"invalid
> address" <1@1.1> wrote:
>
> :> >Bill Gates prides himself on being the first man ever to write code
for
> :> >a microcomputer.
> :
> :Well if he prides himself on that then he's fooled himself and is a
> :complete liar. What about C/PM he stole? There were other kinds of
> :microcomputer code.
>
> The code he wrote predates CP/M. He wrote the first BASIC for the Altair
> -- arguably the first commercial software ever on a microcomputer. He and
> Paul Allen marketed it when Microsoft was a garage operation, way before
> the QDOS/IBM deal. Gates was also the first person to bitch about
software
> piracy, in the Homebrew computer club newsletter. The Altair BASIC was
> distributed on widely-duplicated punched tape.
>
> The Altair BASIC was his own work. It may have been many years since Bill
> wrote any code, but in his day, he was pretty damned good at it. He's
more
> accomplished at dealmaking than he ever was at coding, but give the man
> his due.
BASIC was invented at Dartmouth College. Bill Gates implemented a version
of their work that was ten years obsolete at the time. It was written for
the mainframe. Gates implemented it on the Altair, but he did not invent
BASIC.
Edwin
John Cutright
Read the post. He didn't say that Gates invented BASIC. He said that
Gates
wrote the first BASIC for the Altair. He also said that "Altair BASIC"
was his
own work, not BASIC in general. Jeez, some people will read anything
into
a post just for the chance to knock Gates.
Michael J. Stango
I didn't feel like weeding through all the attributions, so let's just say
that "someone" wrote:
>> > The Altair BASIC was his own work. It may have been many years since Bill
>> > wrote any code, but in his day, he was pretty damned good at it. He's
>> more
>> > accomplished at dealmaking than he ever was at coding, but give the man
>> > his due.
Gates is a passable dealmaker at best, and owes his 'shrewd' reputation to
luck. The people he dealt with in the very early days made quick decisions
that usually turned out to be bad ones, and Gates made out like a bandit.
Once he got his meathooks on the rights to DOS and IBM turned it into the
worldwide standard by default, that was it. These days, he doesn't make
deals-- he dictates terms, and if you don't bow down and kiss his feet your
company can't license Windows and you'll go out of business in short order
because nobody will buy your computer when they'd have to pay extra for
Windows and install it themselves, and they'd rather spend their time
playing Quake II.
That, friends, is what ya call a 'monopoly'-- but that's a whole other thread.
Gates *is* a smart man, but he owes half to two-thirds of what he has today
to simply being in the exactly right place at the exactly right time.
~Philly
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Michael J. Stango -known as 'mjstango' at his ISP, 'worldnet.att.net'
"It's no secret some of our best ideas have come from recognizing
those of others. Explorer is a perfect example. Sure, we weren't the
first company on the web bandwagon. But we copied Netscape Navigator
and used our dominance of the operating system market to strongarm
users into adopting our browser in its place."
--David Wright parodies a recent Microsoft ad
M Rassbach
Edwin E. Thorne wrote:
> Bill Gates implemented a version
> of their work that was ten years obsolete at the time.
And your source for this is?
r.e.b...@usa.net
In article <01bd7ab6$e725e9a0$c074...@edwint.rauland.com>,
"Edwin E. Thorne" <edwin....@rauland.com> wrote:
> Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> <atticus-0805...@user-38lcb2o.dialup.mindspring.com>...
> > In article <01bd7a4b$47ce9a20$1800...@DevTest.greenspan.com.au>,
> "invalid
> > address" <1@1.1> wrote:
> >
> > :> >Bill Gates prides himself on being the first man ever to write code
> for
> > :> >a microcomputer.
Check out:
http://www.ssd.sscc.ru/library/cpu/comphist/comp1971.htm
He claims that he was the first person to write a BASIC interpreter for
the MITS Altair. The timeline indicates that the first run was in February
of 1975.
By this time, Gary Kildall had already written CP/M, the SWTP machine
already had a BASIC interpreter, and RCA had CHIP-8 (a threaded interpeter
for the 1802).
> > :Well if he prides himself on that then he's fooled himself and is a
> > :complete liar.
Bill Gates is a bit like the "Paul Bunyan" of the computer industry. The
real "Paul Bunyan" was a Logger who was able to chop down a tree faster than
a man using a chain saw (the motor on the huge saw wouldn't start at first
and stalled during the contest). The legends got bigger and bigger until
Paul Bunyan was 50 feet tall, and ate entire cows for breakfast lunch and
dinner.
Bill Gates ported a BASIC interpreter he found in a Dumpster from PDP-11
to the 8080 using an 8080 emulator developed by Paul Allen as a test bed.
(According to quotes from Gates and the narrative in "Inside Windows NT").
> > :What about C/PM he stole?
He didn't "steal it", he just purchased in under false pretenses from a
company with shallow pockets (couldn't afford to sue and not worth suing)
for $100,000. Only after driving the "straw-man company" into bankruptcy
did he pay the remaining directors the remainder of just over $1 million.
The person who set up the whole deal is still an employee of Microsoft,
probably playing video games in the Bahamas.
> > :There were other kinds of
> > :microcomputer code.
CP/M, Fig Forth, Chip/8, PL/M, to mention a few.
> > The code he wrote predates CP/M.
Actually, CP/M was written in 1974, BASIC was written in 1975. The
difference is about 3 months. Kildall's PL/M was written in 1973,
a full year before Gate's BASIC. Strangely enough, SmallTalk was also
produced on the Alto (a microcomputer based on an overloaded 8080).
> > He wrote the first BASIC for the Altair
> > -- arguably the first commercial software ever on a microcomputer.
BASIC got better press because it was available on Paper Tape (Popular
Electronics published an article on how to make a paper tape reader
and toggle in a "loader" routine.
> > He and
> > Paul Allen marketed it when Microsoft was a garage operation, way before
> > the QDOS/IBM deal.
Actually, they didn't market it. MITS licenced it and sent copies to each
of the MITS dealers, along with a bill for $500 for the "BASIC License".
The dealers thought they were getting a licence to distribute the software.
> > Gates was also the first person to bitch about software
> > piracy, in the Homebrew computer club newsletter. The Altair BASIC was
> > distributed on widely-duplicated punched tape.
Part of this was the fault of MITS. Gates wanted a rediculous price for
his BASIC interpeter. The dealers figured if they could sell 10 copies
at $50 each, they could break even on the License. Once Gates wrote the
letter (and spoke at the Kansas City Computer Conference) many dealers
sent back their originals and sent letters to Gates and MITS apologising
for the misunderstanding. Several were prepared to countersue for fraud.
There were even a few threatening to sue for defamation.
> > The Altair BASIC was his own work. It may have been many years since Bill
> > wrote any code, but in his day, he was pretty damned good at it. He's
> more
> > accomplished at dealmaking than he ever was at coding, but give the man
> > his due.
The true innovation that made Bill Gates a billionaire happened after all
of the dealers canceled their "Licenses". Bill went back to MITS and told
the owner (Ed Roberts) that if MITS didn't pay $150,000 and $50/copy for
anything over 3000 licences that he would write a BASIC for the SWTP
6800 machine. Gates used the $150,000 to pay for the porting to the
Commodore PET BASIC in ROM.
> BASIC was invented at Dartmouth College.
> Bill Gates implemented a version
> of their work that was ten years obsolete at the time.
DEC however used BASIC in it's Time Share systems. Bill Gates and
Paul Allen were contractors for a time-share company, fixing bugs in
DEC programs, probably including BASIC.
> It was written for the mainframe.
Actually, the BASIC that Gates implemented was probably written for
the PDP-10.
> Gates implemented it on the Altair, but he did not invent BASIC.
With Compaq now taking ownership of DEC, Compaq may be able to join
Caldera in challenging the intellectual property rights of Microsoft.
> Edwin
> > Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com *
> http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
> >
Rex Ballard - http://www.access.digex.net/~rballard
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Edwin E. Thorne
John Cutright <nospam_joh...@alliedsignal.com> wrote:
> Edwin E. Thorne wrote:
> >
> > Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> > <atticus-0805...@user-38lcb2o.dialup.mindspring.com>...
> > > In article <01bd7a4b$47ce9a20$1800...@DevTest.greenspan.com.au>,
> > "invalid
> > > address" <1@1.1> wrote:
> > >
> > > :> >Bill Gates prides himself on being the first man ever to write code
> > for
> > > :> >a microcomputer.
> > > :
> > > :Well if he prides himself on that then he's fooled himself and is a
> > > :complete liar. What about C/PM he stole? There were other kinds of
> > > :microcomputer code.
> > >
> > > The code he wrote predates CP/M. He wrote the first BASIC for the Altair
> > > -- arguably the first commercial software ever on a microcomputer. He and
> > > Paul Allen marketed it when Microsoft was a garage operation, way before
> > > the QDOS/IBM deal. Gates was also the first person to bitch about
> > software
> > > piracy, in the Homebrew computer club newsletter. The Altair BASIC was
> > > distributed on widely-duplicated punched tape.
> > >
> > > The Altair BASIC was his own work. It may have been many years since Bill
> > > wrote any code, but in his day, he was pretty damned good at it. He's
> > more
> > > accomplished at dealmaking than he ever was at coding, but give the man
> > > his due.
> >
> > BASIC was invented at Dartmouth College. Bill Gates implemented a version
> > of their work that was ten years obsolete at the time. It was written for
> > the mainframe. Gates implemented it on the Altair, but he did not invent
> > BASIC.
> >
>
> Read the post. He didn't say that Gates invented BASIC. He said that
> Gates
> wrote the first BASIC for the Altair. He also said that "Altair BASIC"
> was his
> own work, not BASIC in general. Jeez, some people will read anything
> into
> a post just for the chance to knock Gates.
>
> > Edwin
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > "You come to see what you want to see
> > > You come to see, but you never come to know." --Kinky Friedman
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com *
> > http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
> > >
Bill Gates ported an existing language to the Altair. He did not write
it from scratch. This is an important distinction to make, as many
people credit Bill Gates with writing the first microprocessor software,
and few know the history of BASIC. It is important that the false
impression that Gates invented BASIC not be allowed to form.
I added some truthful supplementary information to what you had written,
but somehow this translates into insulting Bill Gates.
Edwin
Edwin E. Thorne
<r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote:
Yes, that sounds likely, as Gates worked with a PDP-10 while he was in
school. Good point.
>
> > Gates implemented it on the Altair, but he did not invent BASIC.
>
> With Compaq now taking ownership of DEC, Compaq may be able to join
> Caldera in challenging the intellectual property rights of Microsoft.
Wouldn't that be ironic? Compaq, the company that started PC cloning
by reverse engineering the IBM PC BIOS, and so building the foundation
of the M$ Empire, will now be the one to bring Bill Gates down. Talk
about poetic justice.
> > Edwin
> > > Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com *
> > http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
> > >
>
> Rex Ballard - http://www.access.digex.net/~rballard
>
>
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Edwin
Edwin E. Thorne
Art Sackett <inv...@see.sig.below> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Just popped in while running some of this micro$_it, thought I'd offer a bit
> of my hazy memory of the period:
>
> Gates didn't steal C/PM -- he bought the rights to "QDOS" (Quick and Dirty
> Operating System) for something ridiculous in hindsight like five or ten
> thousand dollars. (The rumor I recall from way back when was that Gates and
> crew had been working on their own OS, couldn't get it right, but had
> already sold the promise to IBM... ) Personally, I thought that C/PM was a
> better OS and paid the extra forty bucks for it when I bought my first
> "store-bought" PC.
>
> I don't remember the guy's name, but I'd bet that the original QDOS author
> has permanent bruises on his ass from kicking it all these years. At the
> time, he thought he made a hell of a fine deal for something he whipped out
> in something like three weeks.
>
Bill Gates didn't rip-off CP/M directly. QDOS was a rip-off of CP/M
and Bill Gates bought QDOS.
I'll never forget what Gary Kildall said in an interview when he was
asked about DOS 1. He said: "Except for a few mistakes in the function
calls, it's a rip-off of CP/M."
Edwin E. Thorne
Zico <Zico...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Edwin E. Thorne wrote:
>
>
> >Wouldn't that be ironic? Compaq, the company that started PC
> cloning
> >by reverse engineering the IBM PC BIOS, and so building the
> foundation
> >of the M$ Empire, will now be the one to bring Bill Gates down.
> Talk
> >about poetic justice.
>
>
> They will be??? Edwin, your bitterness has left you *seriously*
> deluded.
>
> Z
Thank you Zico, you're much too kind.
I was only letting my imagination go there. I should have said "could
be" rather than "will be."
Jason S.
Art Sackett wrote:
>I don't remember the guy's name, but I'd bet that the original QDOS author
>has permanent bruises on his ass from kicking it all these years. At the
>time, he thought he made a hell of a fine deal for something he whipped out
>in something like three weeks.
Tim Paterson. Apparently he still works for MS. He's probably quite
happy - I'd guess he's a multimillionaire.
Gary Kildall, the author of CP/M, of course, is dead (some poster recently
implied that he committed suicide, but that isn't true). Kildall was
the guy who got screwed, which is tragic, since he was a hundred times
the innovator and computer scientist than Gates ever dreamed of being.
Paterson's hack was a ripoff of Kildall's system.
--
If FreeBSD actually did that, I would concede that FreeBSD was any more
"correct" than Linux is, but not even the FreeBSD people can justify
that kind of performance loss.
-- Linus Torvalds on comp.unix.advocacy
Maynard Handley
In article <01bd7919$a1ef4dc0$c074...@edwint.rauland.com>, "Edwin E.
Thorne" <edwin....@rauland.com> wrote:
> Jeffrey Fulmer <jfu...@whiteoaknet.com> wrote in article
> <355063A6...@whiteoaknet.com>...
> > In message <354FC1...@globaldialog.com>, Jim Mueller
> > (web...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
> > : Who cares if Win95/NT is bloated? Modern processors are lightening
> > fast
> > : and memory is dirt cheap!!
>
> Actually, it is Microsoft's code bloat that fueled the demand for faster
> processors and larger memory.
Yeah, sure it is.
Those silly users who want to decode MPEG in software or play back 3D
lifelike games had nothing to do with it.
God, the stupidity, the stupidity.
Maynard
--
My opinion only
Jeff Read
Andy Walton wrote:
> The Altair BASIC was his own work. It may have been many years since Bill
> wrote any code, but in his day, he was pretty damned good at it. He's more
> accomplished at dealmaking than he ever was at coding, but give the man
> his due.
I understand it was OK. If what somebody says downthread was true, and
this particular implementation of BASIC was an obsolete version, then
I'd have to consider whether or not to sell it, at least not charge the
exorbitant price that Gates and Allen charged. (something like $500?) I
believe Gates wrote it for hack value, and were I he I would distribute
it as a hack-value thing and not a professional product. But I'm not he
so he didn't. :)
Jeff Read
Identity Withheld wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, and having read several writings on the
> man, he has never made any such statement about being the first to
> write code for a microcomputer. In other words, the original poster is
> trolling.
Uh, no, actually I saw him say so much in his "Ask Bill" column featured
on the Microsoft web page. Somebody wrote, "Who came up with the name
Microsoft?" and Bill Gates responded something like, "I did, but I don't
consider it much of an achievement. I just thought of it as a logical
name for a company that makes microcomputer software. I guess when
you're the first in the field you get to choose the obvious name." It's
there, look for it. In another post I believe he says, "In 1975 I wrote
the first microcomputer program" but I'm not sure. I'm sure he does
believe he wrote the first microcomputer code... if his cluelessness
about the industry today is any indication of the way he was 23 years
ago!
Kreme
In article <3555f9db.557362687@hydra>, bro...@trinity.mensa.net (Identity
Withheld) wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 1998 01:31:53 -0500 , "invalid address" <1@1.1> wrote:
>
> >> >Bill Gates prides himself on being the first man ever to write code for
> >> >a microcomputer.
> >
> >Well if he prides himself on that then he's fooled himself and is a
> >complete liar. What about C/PM he stole? There were other kinds of
> >microcomputer code.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, and having read several writings on the
> man, he has never made any such statement about being the first to
> write code for a microcomputer. In other words, the original poster is
> trolling.
>
> >> Um... I believe he's the first man ever to *sell* code for a
> >> microcomputer. There's a difference.
> >
> >Yes: sell pirated microcomputer code. What an achievement.
>
> He bought it fair and square in a business deal. That's not pirated.
> The company he bought it from later called foul when they found out
> how much money they missed out on, but that's their problem. Business
> is business.
He smuggled a paper punch BASIC assembler out of a building and later
negotiated to buy the compiler he'd already stolen.
A thief is a thief is a thief.
Jason S.
Maynard Handley wrote:
Edwin's just trying to stay on-topic.
;)
Christopher John Bleecker Crowe
On 6 May 1998, Edwin E. Thorne wrote:
>
>
> Jeffrey Fulmer <jfu...@whiteoaknet.com> wrote in article
> <355063A6...@whiteoaknet.com>...
> > In message <354FC1...@globaldialog.com>, Jim Mueller
> > (web...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
> > : Who cares if Win95/NT is bloated? Modern processors are lightening
> > fast
> > : and memory is dirt cheap!!
>
> Actually, it is Microsoft's code bloat that fueled the demand for faster
> processors and larger memory.
Then thank goodness for microsoft, because without the demand for faster
processors, none would have been invented. Perhaps this is microsoft's
greatest technical legacy.
Quantum Leaper
Christopher John Bleecker Crowe wrote in message ...
chips.
Newsbot
> He smuggled a paper punch BASIC assembler out of a building and later
> negotiated to buy the compiler he'd already stolen.
>
> A thief is a thief is a thief.
>
He hasn't changed. No matter how much Bridge he plays.
John Black
This is an article I got from ZDNet. What do you all think?
Who'll Really Be Hurt If Wintel Falls
Jesse Berst, Editorial Director
ZDNet AnchorDesk
Could this be the turning point? Could this be the first crack in the
wall of monopoly power that protects the Wintel duo (Microsoft and
Intel)?
As I write this, two government groups are poised to sue Microsoft for
antitrust violations (click for full story ). And the Federal Trade
Commission is stepping up its long-standing examination of Intel
(click for full story ).
But here's what we should be worrying about: If Wintel falls, who'll
get crushed under the rubble? If Windows 98 is delayed in any way, who
will get hurt? Not cash-rich Microsoft and Intel, at least not in the
short term. Here's a look at who'll be damaged, in order of greatest
danger:
Retailers. As Mary Jo Foley of Sm@rt Reseller explains, retailers are
counting on Win98 to ease the summer doldrums. With their razor-thin
profit margins, they could be in bad shape if there's no Win98 to
bring customers into stores (click for full story ).
Peripheral vendors. Makers of printers, scanners, keyboards, digital
cameras and other outboard devices are counting on Win98 to make it
easier, faster and safer to install new gadgets. A few of the latest
devices work only with the new Universal Serial Bus, which is
supported in Win98 (click for full story ).
Corporate resellers. "When corporate buyers are concerned or confused,
they delay purchase," Symantec President and CEO Gordon Eubanks told
me recently.
Computer makers. With all the concern over outdated inventory,
hardware manufacturers could be hurting if they've already put Win98
programs into place… and then have to back off.
Software vendors. Sure, these companies would benefit if Win98 caused
a surge in overall sales. But as Adobe Chairman and CEO John Warnock
said to me a few days ago, "We've been burned before, by Windows 95
and by Apple. So we try very hard not to depend on any specific
features or any specific release date."
Does that mean the rest of us are insulated from danger? In the short
term, yes. But the technology industry is prone to the domino effect.
Damage to resellers and peripheral makers could easily spread to other
market segments. Hurting everybody in the technology industry (the
world's largest). And even affecting the global economy, since the
tech sector exerts such powerful influence over stock markets and
investor confidence.
So if you're a Bill-basher secretly gloating over his current
troubles, don't be so smug. A Windows 98 delay would be painful all
right… but you're likely to feel the hurt long before Mr. Gates.
Dalton
Just get the government off their backs, and let them do what they
want to do without stifling them. And besides, monopolies are not a
bad thing!
M Rassbach
Tell ya what.
If you believe this, than work to get in a government in the US (and
elsewhere) that supports this view.
Vote in, say Ohhhh Libertarians and then vote in the NEW laws to support
your point of view.
At this time, there is the Sherman Anti-Trust law, and many ppl believe
Microsoft has violated this law. The proper place to answer this
question is the court.
Or, Microsoft can act in a manner that would not get them brought to
court. Another alternative is for Microsoft to STOP doing business in
countries where they disagree with the laws.
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <35573978...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>,
Dalton <dalton...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Just get the government off their backs, and let them do what they
>want to do without stifling them.
The whole point of the DoJ investigation is that Microsoft doesn't leave
anyone else alone.
>And besides, monopolies are not a
>bad thing!
Prove it.
Stephen Edwards
John Black <soul_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: This is an article I got from ZDNet. What do you all think?
[most of article snipped]
: So if you're a Bill-basher secretly gloating over his current
: troubles, don't be so smug. A Windows 98 delay would be painful all
: right… but you're likely to feel the hurt long before Mr. Gates.
Hmmm... typical ZDNet bullshit and FUD. Another author with too much time
on his hands, and diskspace on his PC.
The only people who will be hurting are corp.s who build luser-toys, like
Gateway 2000, or Packard Smell. This will give other corporations such as
Sun, or DEC a better standing... is this a good thing?... I dunno, but
they do make much better hardware, AFAIC.
--
.-----. Stephen S. Edwards II |-._.---._
|[_] :| Support GNU... run UNIX... be happy. | G N U ! |
| = :| http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount |-._.---._|
| | r a k m o u n t @primenet.remove.com |
|_..._| Linux: Turning toys, into workstations. |
Eric Bennett
Yes, we're all screwed, but only because "the rest of us" (Mac users) just
got equally screwed today.
(My apologies to Linux users.)
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb)
Cornell University Biochemistry Department
John Black
Poll after poll indicates that eh general public is more likely to
have a favourable opinion of Microsoft, and that government action is
not needed. However, polls of computer hobbyists, professionals, and
educators show that they have an overwhelming ly unfavourable image of
Microsoft, and that government action is urgently needed. Why is
that? Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
Ben
The smarter you are, the harder it is for Bill "I OWN the Devil!" Gates to
brainwash you.
Rolf Magnus
John Black wrote:
>
> This is an article I got from ZDNet. What do you all think?
>----------------snip---snip---snip---------------------<
> Retailers. As Mary Jo Foley of Sm@rt Reseller explains, retailers are
> counting on Win98 to ease the summer doldrums. With their razor-thin
> profit margins, they could be in bad shape if there's no Win98 to
> bring customers into stores (click for full story ).
This will hopefully teach them to not count on Microsoft.
> Peripheral vendors. Makers of printers, scanners, keyboards, digital
> cameras and other outboard devices are counting on Win98 to make it
> easier, faster and safer to install new gadgets. A few of the latest
> devices work only with the new Universal Serial Bus, which is
> supported in Win98 (click for full story ).
I think they still have to support W95, wether W98 is delayed or not.
And the latest Win95 has usb support. Again, if this really is a
problem,
they hopefully learn not to count on Microsoft.
[snip]
> Software vendors. Sure, these companies would benefit if Win98 caused
> a surge in overall sales. But as Adobe Chairman and CEO John Warnock
> said to me a few days ago, "We've been burned before, by Windows 95
> and by Apple. So we try very hard not to depend on any specific
> features or any specific release date."
At least someone who has learned it already.
> Does that mean the rest of us are insulated from danger? In the short
> term, yes. But the technology industry is prone to the domino effect.
> Damage to resellers and peripheral makers could easily spread to
other
> market segments. Hurting everybody in the technology industry (the
> world's largest). And even affecting the global economy, since the
> tech sector exerts such powerful influence over stock markets and
> investor confidence.
> So if you're a Bill-basher secretly gloating over his current
> troubles, don't be so smug. A Windows 98 delay would be painful all
> right… but you're likely to feel the hurt long before Mr. Gates.
Which does not imply that Gates will be hurt. Think about the image
loss that MS will get. MS will not be hurt immediately, but it will
also be delayed like Win98.
Rolf Magnus
Dalton wrote:
>
> Just get the government off their backs, and let them do what they
> bad thing!
I live in Germany, where there were some real monopolies:
Telekom :the telephone/fax/isdn company
(not a real monopoly any more since this year,
but there is no real alternative yet)
AFAIK, we have the highest phone bills of
the world.
Post :snail mail service.
(monopoly will fall)
also very expensive.
public TV .. I don't know how to translate it, non-private ones.
:this one is already down since several years.
before, we had 3 TV channels! that we had to pay
much money for, but that also showed some commercials.
I think monopolies *are* a Bad Thing (tm)
Jeff Read
Stephen Edwards wrote:
> The only people who will be hurting are corp.s who build luser-toys, like
> Gateway 2000, or Packard Smell. This will give other corporations such as
> Sun, or DEC a better standing... is this a good thing?... I dunno, but
> they do make much better hardware, AFAIC.
Uh, have you seen the Wintel boxes by DEC? They're the most worthless
pieces of shit you can make and still call them PC's. Alphas rule, but
there's not an Alpha to be found at our school. (SGI's, yes, but those
are soon to be obsoleted by SGI's Wintel offerings.) But we have a whole
campus full of shoddy Wintel clones bearing the DIGITAL logo.
> .-----. Stephen S. Edwards II |-._.---._
> |[_] :| Support GNU... run UNIX... be happy. | G N U ! |
> | = :| http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount |-._.---._|
> | | r a k m o u n t @primenet.remove.com |
> |_..._| Linux: Turning toys, into workstations. |
I love this sig. :)
M. Kilgore
John Black wrote in message <3557da06...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
:Poll after poll indicates that eh general public is more likely to
:have a favourable opinion of Microsoft, and that government action is
:not needed. However, polls of computer hobbyists, professionals, and
:educators show that they have an overwhelming ly unfavourable image of
:Microsoft, and that government action is urgently needed. Why is
:that? Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
:likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
Personally, I think that the assumption that as you get more computer
literate you get the more you dislike MS is incorrect. My observation is
that the more computer literate people get the less they care about Apple,
MS, et. al. and the more they care about just being able to do what they
want to do - that is they tend to worry more about application performance
and less about system design.
mark
Jeff Read
John Black wrote:
>
> Poll after poll indicates that eh general public is more likely to
> have a favourable opinion of Microsoft, and that government action is
> not needed. However, polls of computer hobbyists, professionals, and
> educators show that they have an overwhelming ly unfavourable image of
> Microsoft, and that government action is urgently needed. Why is
> that? Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
> likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
Is this a rhetorical question? Computer professionals know more than
anybody else that Microsoft products usually suck. A competitor's
product can get the job done faster and more reliably than Microsoft's
offering. Yet Microsoft continues to remain the dominant software
supplier. Why? A little research uncovers a history of dirty licensing
deals involving its DOS and Windows operating systems that preclude
competitors from interoperating completely with Microsoft software and
preclude PC makers from installing or licensing DOS or Windows if they
didn't favor Microsoft in some way. The stated goal of Microsoft is to
achieve 100% market share and it's working very hard for this goal.
Computer professionals are more likely to see this because they deal
with the pitfalls of Microsoft products, and are more likely to be
exposed to superior products, and are likely to wonder, "How can
products this bad achieve such market penetration?" and uncover the
facts for themselves. Ordinary users are not. They believe that all
computers crash at least once a day because that's all they've been
exposed to. They don't read, for example, the ZDNet mags (which are
decidedly pro-Microsoft, but still, that is where I heard the internal
Microsoft slogan "DOS isn't done till Lotus won't run") and they don't
spend much time with users of other OS's and products.
Perhaps one day an ordinary user will have a computer-geek friend or
relative who recommends that they try Linux so they put it on their
machine, and lo and behold! Real 32-bit multitasking that's this short
of crash-proof! Then they too begin to wonder about Microsoft.
You will find this trend in other areas too. For example, most people
approve of Bill Clinton as a president. But many people who have some
knowledge of American history and the Constitution do not. They wonder,
"How'd this jerk ever get elected into office?"
M. Kilgore
Jeff Read wrote in message <3557F83C...@stevens-tech.edu>...
SNIP
:You will find this trend in other areas too. For example, most people
:approve of Bill Clinton as a president. But many people who have some
:knowledge of American history and the Constitution do not. They wonder,
:"How'd this jerk ever get elected into office?"
Shoot, Jeff, that's easy to figure out - more people voted for Clinton than
Dole. The wise conservative will point out that less than half the
population voted for Clinton, but the democrat will respond that even less
voted for Dole. It seems that more democrats have a better understanding at
least one aspect of both American History and its constitution than many
conservatives, namely that you have to get out and be counted if you want
to participate. Far too many conservatives, in the belief that they were
taking the 'moral' high ground, chose not to cast a vote at all because the
electorial process was beneath them. Some, like my conservative
brother-in-law, chose not to vote because it would make him liable for jury
duty.
In many ways, I liken the Apple/MS battle to the Dole/Clinton campaign.
Only the conservative conservatives could have taken a highly marketable
man like Dole, who was well respected by both the democrats and
middle-of-the -roaders and turn him into something that mainstream
republicans couldn't vote for. Had Bob Dole been allowed to be "Bob Dole",
such as he was before the campaign and is now, then there would have been a
very good chance that ol'Bob would be president now. Oh well, I guess that
the conservative conservatives got what they wanted anyway, Clinton won't
be our president after the next election.
mark
M Rassbach
Rolf Magnus wrote:
> Dalton wrote:
> >
> > Just get the government off their backs, and let them do what they
> > want to do without stifling them. And besides, monopolies are not a
> > bad thing!
>
> I live in Germany, where there were some real monopolies:
> I think monopolies *are* a Bad Thing (tm)
Well, work for a different Government then!
TL
On Mon, 11 May 1998 17:41:42 GMT, soul_b...@yahoo.com (John Black)
Said Unto the Faithful:
>This is an article I got from ZDNet. What do you all think?
>
>Who'll Really Be Hurt If Wintel Falls
>
>Jesse Berst, Editorial Director
>ZDNet AnchorDesk
>
>. . . . But here's what we should be worrying about: If Wintel falls, who'll
>get crushed under the rubble? If Windows 98 is delayed in any way, who
>will get hurt? Not cash-rich Microsoft and Intel, at least not in the
>short term. Here's a look at who'll be damaged, in order of greatest
>danger:
>
>. . . . So if you're a Bill-basher secretly gloating over his current
>troubles, don't be so smug. A Windows 98 delay would be painful all
>right… but you're likely to feel the hurt long before Mr. Gates.
What Microsoft REALLY should fear is the realization on the part of
millions of users that Win98 is no big deal and nobody would miss it if
it were delayed or canned altogether. How many IS people give a rat's
ass whether Win98 arrives, with or without browser?
Forget that you can get the great majority of W98 via downloads, free,
at the MS website; forget that this is little more than a massive
bugfix, which would be free or dirt cheap if MS had any respect for its
customers.
Even PC Magazine, the most unapologetic Wintel rag in existence, said
months ago that Win95 plus MSIE 4.0 and "power toys" constituted the
vast majority of "Windows '98," and is free for the downloading.
The fact is that nobody is going to miss Win98 except for people who
stand to make money using its logo on software and hardware that will
run on '95 anyway. That includes MS Corp. and all the people who have a
vested interest in making Win98 out to be an actual "new product."
You have to pity anyone who pins their livelihood to the release of a
limp add-on product that touts itself as something new. Hell, we in
LinuxLand get better news in one month of comp.os.linux.announce than
Windoze users get in three years. This should say something about the
sad state of computing in the Wintel camp, when the best that MS has to
offer its users after several years is a ripped-off web browser and a
bundle of bugfixes and "geewiz" features. When you consider that the
$100 price tag on '98 is about 1/10th of the price of a new computer, it
looks even more pathetic.
For the first time since I purchased MS stock back in 1985
(who knew what they'd become?), I've asked my broker to come up with an
alternate purchase plan.
TL
"Things are more like they are now than they ever were before."
-Former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Gary J. Hicken
In article <6j9fet$a1f$1...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, M. Kilgore wrote:
>
>Jeff Read wrote in message <3557F83C...@stevens-tech.edu>...
>
>SNIP
That's a convenient snip considering the following that Jeff Read wrote
is in context with what you snipped and NOT with your reply.
I didn't vote for either but it is because I'm a Libertarian - a decision I
made because I did a lot of reading. I originally installed Linux 1.0.9 three
years ago because I wanted to learn UNIX. I use it 100% of the time now. In
the mean time I help several Windows95 users fix the problems they have. If I
didn't know what I know I wouldn't be fixing others' computers, I wouldn't be
using Linux all the time and I may have voted for Clinton. Clinton won and
I could make a living fixing MS users software problems.
--
Gary Hicken
Redhat 5.0 Linux kernel 2.0.31
remove NOSPAM
Don't trust the source - unless you have the source code.
sincla...@earthlink.net
In article <35573978...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>,
dalton...@yahoo.com (Dalton) wrote:
>
> Just get the government off their backs, and let them do what they
> want to do without stifling them. And besides, monopolies are not a
> bad thing!
Not unless you are a software developer playing by the rules.
Peter S.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
M. Kilgore
Gary J. Hicken wrote in message ...
:In article <6j9fet$a1f$1...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, M. Kilgore wrote:
:>
:>Jeff Read wrote in message <3557F83C...@stevens-tech.edu>...
:>
:>SNIP
:
:That's a convenient snip considering the following that Jeff Read wrote
:is in context with what you snipped and NOT with your reply.
Actually, Gary, it was a snip of convenience since I've been having trouble
lately with my isp processing messages when they're not snipped. I've been
bitching to them about it but haven't had any luck getting the matter
remedied so far. For the benefit of those, like you, that feel the election
of Clinton is closely tied to Apple's and linux's problems, then here is
what I snipped out of Jeff's post:
"Is this a rhetorical question? Computer professionals know more than
anybody else that Microsoft products usually suck. A competitor's
product can get the job done faster and more reliably than Microsoft's
offering. Yet Microsoft continues to remain the dominant software
supplier. Why? A little research uncovers a history of dirty licensing
deals involving its DOS and Windows operating systems that preclude
competitors from interoperating completely with Microsoft software and
preclude PC makers from installing or licensing DOS or Windows if they
didn't favor Microsoft in some way. The stated goal of Microsoft is to
achieve 100% market share and it's working very hard for this goal.
Computer professionals are more likely to see this because they deal
with the pitfalls of Microsoft products, and are more likely to be
exposed to superior products, and are likely to wonder, "How can
products this bad achieve such market penetration?" and uncover the
facts for themselves. Ordinary users are not. They believe that all
computers crash at least once a day because that's all they've been
exposed to. They don't read, for example, the ZDNet mags (which are
decidedly pro-Microsoft, but still, that is where I heard the internal
Microsoft slogan "DOS isn't done till Lotus won't run") and they don't
spend much time with users of other OS's and products.
Perhaps one day an ordinary user will have a computer-geek friend or
relative who recommends that they try Linux so they put it on their
machine, and lo and behold! Real 32-bit multitasking that's this short
of crash-proof! Then they too begin to wonder about Microsoft."
:
:>
:>:You will find this trend in other areas too. For example, most people
It depends on your approach, Gary. As you're fixing your friends machines,
do you gently educate them about Linux or do you just tell'em Linux is
better and then damn 'em for their ignorance? Too often, it's the later
approach that many,( dare I say most?) Mac and linux advocates seem take
when they advocate. It's much like the "Big Tent" in San Diego - invite a
lot of people in and then kick'em out because they like some of the things
going on. Too many times during the last election cycle I noticed too many
conservatives that would gently lead people into the program - all the way
until the person started asking questions that indicated that he wasn't in
total agreement with the program and then out they'd go just as quickly as
they could be labeled "Godless Liberal." No doubt that some were actually
"Godless Liberals," but many were just moderate republicans and
conservative democrats. It was just plain silly to cast them out.
Good luck on being a libertarian, as a southerner, I've got a mean streak
of libertarian thoughts myself. The trouble with being a libertarian,
though, is basic - in order to accomplish what you want then you must be
willing to play the game you choose to end.
mark
:--
Stephen Edwards
<3557F383...@stevens-tech.edu>
Organization: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc.
Distribution:
Jeff Read <bit...@geocities.com> wrote:
: Stephen Edwards wrote:
: > The only people who will be hurting are corp.s who build luser-toys, like
: > Gateway 2000, or Packard Smell. This will give other corporations such as
: > Sun, or DEC a better standing... is this a good thing?... I dunno, but
: > they do make much better hardware, AFAIC.
: Uh, have you seen the Wintel boxes by DEC? They're the most worthless
: pieces of shit you can make and still call them PC's. Alphas rule, but
Mind you, I was referring to DEC's own hardware, and not their PeeCee
trash. Their Alpha-based offerings are _very_ nice.
: there's not an Alpha to be found at our school. (SGI's, yes, but those
: are soon to be obsoleted by SGI's Wintel offerings.) But we have a whole
: campus full of shoddy Wintel clones bearing the DIGITAL logo.
Of course. Educational institutions are tightwads. Especially
Universities.
: I love this sig. :)
Thanks. Tried to replicate my custom box I built at home. :)
--
skin...@bits.skinbits.pt
Dalton <dalton...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just get the government off their backs, and let them do what they
> want to do without stifling them. And besides, monopolies are not a
> bad thing!
You're sure of your idea??? Do you think a monopoly is that good???
You are crazy!!!! I live in a country that have only one phone provider,
that also works as a line provider. Whell... Some 10 years ago they only
charged a limited amount ($0.02) for a 24h call to a local phone. Now beteween
9am and 9pm we pay $.05 for each 3 minutes we use our phone. In the
space from 9pm to 9am we pay $0.5 for each 6 minutes. That may seem not
much, but when a medium wage in here it's around $700 a month, that a lot
And this is for a local call... A non local call cost much more.
This year they decided that for each call we make, we must pay a tax for
the connection. No one can do nothing. They decide. If you go look around
for a ISDN line to connect your company to the Internet, you must pay
around ten times what you pay in the US. And you think they give good
service??? you're wrong. If one of their servers fails in a friday at
7.01pm, there is no one to fix it. We must wait to monday so that that
server gets well. That happened last friday to the mail server. No one
got mail till tuesday in the next week.
Something strange happend with Celular Phones... When we had only one
provider, to buy a phone you would pay around $4000. Then the government
licenced a second operator. Now you can buy a Cell Phone for around $55.
A "small" diference, isn't it?
Now let's imagine that MS becames a monopoly. All they'r products will
be more expensive, their OS will be worst AND more expensive. You see,
they are a monopoly, they don't need to get the programs working right,
because even if they only work 5 minutes at a time, no one can buy another
thing... It would be great... A single OS vendor, a single application
vendor, and no icentive to create something better... You would have to
buy a new OS for each patch they send out...
If that happned, then you would still be saying that MS must be a monopoly???
Skinbits
Xtacy
Dalton wrote:
>
> Just get the government off their backs, and let them do what they
> want to do without stifling them. And besides, monopolies are not a
> bad thing!
Nice troll
--
Beneath this stone a virgin lies,
For her life held no terrors.
A virgin born, a virgin died:
No hits, no runs, no errors.
TL
On Mon, 11 May 1998 17:46:35 GMT, dalton...@yahoo.com (Dalton) Said
Unto the Faithful:
>Just get the government off their backs, and let them do what they
>want to do without stifling them. And besides, monopolies are not a
>bad thing!
Uh oh - - it's Dolton again, trolling for suckers. Let's see who he
reels in this time . . .
Tracy R Reed
Jeff Read <jr...@stevens-tech.edu> wrote:
>offering. Yet Microsoft continues to remain the dominant software
>supplier. Why? A little research uncovers a history of dirty licensing
I just learned that my alma mater, Tehachapi High School, has finally gotten a
computer curriculum. When I graduated in '93, they didn't have a single
computer class. They have a nice network linking all of the schools together
and to the Internet. What OS are they running it all on? NT. Why? Because MS
gave them all of the software absolutely free. I am telling them about Linux
and hopefully I can get a Linux server installed on their network to
demonstrate it's abilities.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Windows 95,
Windows NT 4.0, or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
David Corcoran
<asbestos-suit>
I'm not so sure, with upcoming Y2k crisis I could easily see him
establishing a state of emergency and suspending the election.
</asbestos-suit>
--@@
~
DavidC
M. Kilgore
David Corcoran wrote in message <3558AF...@boeing.com>...
:M. Kilgore wrote:
:>
SNIP
:
:<asbestos-suit>
:I'm not so sure, with upcoming Y2k crisis I could easily see him
:establishing a state of emergency and suspending the election.
:</asbestos-suit>
:
Oh, I dunno.... if they keep coming after him like they have since '94, the
public might just vote him interim president by acclamation.:-) Otherwise,
I expect he'll be ready to leave at the end of his term.
mark
shecat and bain
>Personally, I think that the assumption that as you get more computer
>literate you get the more you dislike MS is incorrect. My observation is
>that the more computer literate people get the less they care about Apple,
>MS, et. al. and the more they care about just being able to do what they
>want to do - that is they tend to worry more about application performance
>and less about system design.
>
I Disagree ...
I am a Computer System And Network Consaltent and alot of my clients want
stability .. they don't care what OS I use .. as long as the get the work
done. M$ products does not give you that. The OS is unstable if you add
something you need to shutdown and restart, The programs are emmory hogging
and slows down the system and 60% of the time crashes the system when you run
and swtich betwenn more then 2.
I use NT and Unix and Novell for different reasons. and I have found novell
and Unix the most stable but novell lacks i security.
And the more my clients use OS's the more they see why M$ is not the way to go
and demand from suppliers of software to pot software to OS's that are more
stable
bain
Willy
On Tue, 12 May 1998 05:10:46 GMT, Soul_B...@yahoo.com (John Black)
wrote:
>Poll after poll indicates that eh general public is more likely to
>have a favourable opinion of Microsoft, and that government action is
>not needed. However, polls of computer hobbyists, professionals, and
>educators show that they have an overwhelming ly unfavourable image of
>Microsoft, and that government action is urgently needed. Why is
>that? Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
>likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
Because those type of people have a very selfish view of how things
should work. To them, the computer is some sort of alter that they
use to practice their "religion." They simply can't believe that
there are people in the world that view the computer as just another
tool that they use to get their work done. However, it is; and like a
hammer, car, or microwave oven, it has to be easy to use. This is the
class of people that Microsoft listens to and develops for because
they constitute the vast majority of users. This class of user
doesn't care about having vast array of configuration options; they
don't have the time or desire to play with them. They don't care
about source code, Java implementations, or any of that crap. And if
you were to sit them down and explain it to them, they still wouldn't
care. That because, to them, the computer represents only a very tiny
part of their lives. They've got a real life...they don't need
another. They've got real work to do; and it has nothing to do with
computers. These people need turnkey solutions; and that's what
Microsoft provides. And when things don't work right they need
someone to call; right *now*. Microsoft provides that too. That's
why end-users like them.
These "computer literate" types don't like the fact that they have to
pay for software (although exactly why software should be free has not
been explained to my satisfaction.) They also don't like to see Bill
Gates, someone who is basically a part of their field of programming,
making so much money when they are not. It's jealousy.
I'm a programmer that's also a strong advocate for users and I think
MS products are far better than anything anyone else produces. No
other OS in the world does everything Windows does. No other
application suite does everything Office does. So they make the best
products in the world, and for some reason they should be punished for
that.
CyberToad
[This followup was posted to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and a copy was
sent to the cited author.]
In article <6j9n7u$jlf$1...@Skin.skinbits.pt>, skin...@Bits.skinbits.pt
says...
> Dalton <dalton...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Just get the government off their backs, and let them do what they
> > want to do without stifling them. And besides, monopolies are not a
> > bad thing!
>
> You're sure of your idea??? Do you think a monopoly is that good???
> You are crazy!!!! I live in a country that have only one phone provider,
> that also works as a line provider. Whell...
[snip]
I think we need to clarify what we mean by "monopoly". I think the
situation you are describing is one where only one company is *allowed*
to provide a good or service. Similar to our post office here in the US.
Nobody else is allowed to deliver the mail. Sure, UPS and Federal
Express can deliver packages, but not mail. If you try to deliver the
mail, you'll wind up in the pokey (that's jail to all you who don't live
in the mid-west). This is quite a bit different than a company or
product that is so successful that it rules a market.
I think what we are looking at here is that people have come to a
realization that it is easier if everyone can run the same software. In
a sense, Microsoft has accomplished what Sun is hoping to do with Java -
a single platform that is everywhere so everyone can run the same
software.
I think what's really needed is a Free Win32 compatible operating system
along the lines of Linux.
--
========================================================================
CyberToad (Todd Hensley) hen...@bright.net www.bright.net/~hensley
"They say Eve tempted Adam with an apple, but man I ain't going for that
I know it was a Pink Cadillac" - Bruce Springsteen
========================================================================
John Alway
David Field wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 May 1998 05:11:38 GMT, Soul_B...@yahoo.com (John Black)
> wrote:
>
> >Poll after poll indicates that eh general public is more likely to
> >have a favourable opinion of Microsoft, and that government action is
> >not needed. However, polls of computer hobbyists, professionals, and
> >educators show that they have an overwhelming ly unfavourable image of
> >Microsoft, and that government action is urgently needed. Why is
> >that? Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
> >likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
Mostly because they are not well versed in rights. This _isn't_
primarily a software issue. Nor is it a Microsoft issue. They're just
the villain of today (it was IBM 15 or so years ago). It is a rights
issue. So many people have no comprehension of what rights are that
they think it's okay to get government thugs to go after their
competitors, will promote it and will be quite self-righteous about it
to boot.
...John
Visit the Committee for the Moral Defense of Microsoft web site:
http://www.moral-defense.org/home.html
David F. Skoll
In article <3558d0f...@news2.asan.com>, Willy
(wil...@rocketmail.com) wrote:
> These "computer literate" types don't like the fact that they have to
> pay for software
No kidding. You *like* paying for something when you can get
something better for free??
> I'm a programmer that's also a strong advocate for users and I think
> MS products are far better than anything anyone else produces.
Well, good for you. Enjoy your blue screens, your lockups,
your incompatibilities, your bloatware and your drive letters
(and enjoy paying for all of this) while the rest of us get
real work done.
> No
> other OS in the world does everything Windows does.
True. Bill Gates did not manage to crash Linux at Comdex.
> No other
> application suite does everything Office does.
True. LaTeX doesn't crash like Word does.
--
David F. Skoll
David Field
>Poll after poll indicates that eh general public is more likely to
>have a favourable opinion of Microsoft, and that government action is
>not needed. However, polls of computer hobbyists, professionals, and
>educators show that they have an overwhelming ly unfavourable image of
>Microsoft, and that government action is urgently needed. Why is
>that? Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
>likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
I guess you must be a huge fan of MS, since you weren't computer
literate enough to post this message only once.
And to the real point of your question: The people who reply to polls
and vote against MS do so because they use some other OS than an MS
product.
If it suits them, it's fair enough, but some folks just get their ego
mixed up with their OS. The reason no-one's using their OS (and they
must, of course, be smart for having picked that OS) is that there's
some dreadful MS plot.
David.
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <MPG.fc2d228f...@news.bright.net>,
CyberToad <hen...@bright.net> wrote:
>I think what we are looking at here is that people have come to a
>realization that it is easier if everyone can run the same software. In
>a sense, Microsoft has accomplished what Sun is hoping to do with Java -
>a single platform that is everywhere so everyone can run the same
>software.
>
>I think what's really needed is a Free Win32 compatible operating system
>along the lines of Linux.
We already have something along those lines in Linux, FreeBSD, and other
variations. Except it runs on many different types of hardware, it's
offered by various organizations, it has better buzzword compliance than
Windows, and it's been utterly ignored by most home users.
--
Stay alert! Trust no one! Keep your laser handy! The Computer is
your Friend!
Jason S.
Davud Field posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>And to the real point of your question: The people who reply to polls
>and vote against MS do so because they use some other OS than an MS
>product.
>If it suits them, it's fair enough, but some folks just get their ego
>mixed up with their OS. The reason no-one's using their OS (and they
>must, of course, be smart for having picked that OS) is that there's
>some dreadful MS plot.
Why is that? Resisting network externalities necessitates some
sacrifice. Those who choose something other than Microsoft must
have a pretty good reason to make that sacrifice, Davud.
Unless you claim that the 51% (which must include a large number of
MS users) are all a bunch of commie pinkos or something like that...
--
If FreeBSD actually did that, I would concede that FreeBSD was any more
"correct" than Linux is, but not even the FreeBSD people can justify
that kind of performance loss.
-- Linus Torvalds on comp.unix.advocacy
Mayor Of R'lyeh
On Wed, 13 May 1998 03:51:10 GMT, dfi...@tiac.net (David Field) chose
to bless us all with this bit of wisdom:
>On Tue, 12 May 1998 05:11:38 GMT, Soul_B...@yahoo.com (John Black)
>wrote:
>
>>Poll after poll indicates that eh general public is more likely to
>>have a favourable opinion of Microsoft, and that government action is
>>not needed. However, polls of computer hobbyists, professionals, and
>>educators show that they have an overwhelming ly unfavourable image of
>>Microsoft, and that government action is urgently needed. Why is
>>that? Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
>>likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
>
>I guess you must be a huge fan of MS, since you weren't computer
>literate enough to post this message only once.
I only got one copy of his message here. Maybe the people that operate
your news server aren't terribly computer litterate. :)
>
>And to the real point of your question: The people who reply to polls
>and vote against MS do so because they use some other OS than an MS
>product.
>
>If it suits them, it's fair enough, but some folks just get their ego
>mixed up with their OS. The reason no-one's using their OS (and they
>must, of course, be smart for having picked that OS) is that there's
>some dreadful MS plot.
>
>David.
We don't think Bill Clinton and Albert Gore ought to be the only
people who live in public housing that get to send their children
to private school.
former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour
Mayor Of R'lyeh
On 13 May 1998 04:03:18 GMT, ja...@jhste1.dyn.ml.org (Jason S.) chose
to bless us all with this bit of wisdom:
>Davud Field posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
>>And to the real point of your question: The people who reply to polls
>>and vote against MS do so because they use some other OS than an MS
>>product.
>
>>If it suits them, it's fair enough, but some folks just get their ego
>>mixed up with their OS. The reason no-one's using their OS (and they
>>must, of course, be smart for having picked that OS) is that there's
>>some dreadful MS plot.
>
>Why is that? Resisting network externalities necessitates some
>sacrifice. Those who choose something other than Microsoft must
>have a pretty good reason to make that sacrifice, Davud.
>
>Unless you claim that the 51% (which must include a large number of
>MS users) are all a bunch of commie pinkos or something like that...
Actually there is a sizable contingent of folks who don't like to use
the mainstream products in any aspect of life. They like to think that
this somehow sets them apart from the 'rabble'. Its more a desire to
stand out via materialistic means than some kind of political
statement.
Jason S.
Mayor Of R'lyeh posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>>Why is that? Resisting network externalities necessitates some
>>sacrifice. Those who choose something other than Microsoft must
>>have a pretty good reason to make that sacrifice, Davud.
>>Unless you claim that the 51% (which must include a large number of
>>MS users) are all a bunch of commie pinkos or something like that...
>Actually there is a sizable contingent of folks who don't like to use
>the mainstream products in any aspect of life. They like to think that
>this somehow sets them apart from the 'rabble'. Its more a desire to
>stand out via materialistic means than some kind of political
>statement.
How do you "stand out" in an anonymous poll?
> We don't think Bill Clinton and Albert Gore ought to be the only
>people who live in public housing that get to send their children
>to private school.
>
> former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour
Love the sig!
Proteus
>:You will find this trend in other areas too. For example, most people
>:approve of Bill Clinton as a president. But many people who have some
>:knowledge of American history and the Constitution do not. They wonder,
>:"How'd this jerk ever get elected into office?"
>
>
>Shoot, Jeff, that's easy to figure out - more people voted for Clinton than
>Dole. The wise conservative will point out that less than half the
>population voted for Clinton, but the democrat will respond that even less
>voted for Dole. It seems that more democrats have a better understanding at
>least one aspect of both American History and its constitution than many
>conservatives, namely that you have to get out and be counted if you want
>to participate. Far too many conservatives, in the belief that they were
>taking the 'moral' high ground, chose not to cast a vote at all because the
>electorial process was beneath them. Some, like my conservative
>brother-in-law, chose not to vote because it would make him liable for jury
>duty.
The only reason that Clinton is President is because most
people are too ignorant of the relationship between his actions and
the "success" of the economy.
Clinton's economy is growing slower (GDP) than Reagan's.
Carter's (another Democrat) economy also grew slower than Reagan's.
The stock market is doing well because the baby boomers are in
their peak earning years and they are pouring money into 401K's,
mutual funds, Roth IRA's, etc. for their retirement. The amount of
liquidity in the market is substantial. This keeps interest rates low,
which of course helps the economy.
Can you imagine what the economy would be doing if Clinton
wasn't the most successful President at capturing our income as taxes
since World War II (his budget will confiscate roughly 20% of US GDP
as federal taxes, the highest since World War II)?
Can you imagine what the economy would be doing if his
increased government spending wasn't sucking up capital that could be
used in productive private investment (his "re-invented" government is
the most expensive in history)?
It makes me sick that people think he is doing a good job.
******************************************************
"Only two things are infinite, the universe
and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former."
- Albert Einstein
******************************************************
Proteus
On Tue, 12 May 1998 06:13:13 -0500, "M. Kilgore"
<mkil...@nospam.prysm.net> wrote:
>
>John Black wrote in message <3557da06...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
>:Poll after poll indicates that eh general public is more likely to
>:have a favourable opinion of Microsoft, and that government action is
>:not needed. However, polls of computer hobbyists, professionals, and
>:educators show that they have an overwhelming ly unfavourable image of
>:Microsoft, and that government action is urgently needed. Why is
>:that? Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
>:likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
>
>
>Personally, I think that the assumption that as you get more computer
>literate you get the more you dislike MS is incorrect. My observation is
>that the more computer literate people get the less they care about Apple,
>MS, et. al. and the more they care about just being able to do what they
>want to do - that is they tend to worry more about application performance
>and less about system design.
>
>mark
>
I run across a heck of a lot of computer experts who don't
have an ax to grind with Microsoft. The ones that *do* have an ax to
grind are the most vocal, and they think that they should be the ones
who do the talking for everyone else.
David Field
On Wed, 13 May 1998 04:22:01 GMT, ev5...@hotxxxmail.com (Mayor Of
R'lyeh) wrote:
>On Wed, 13 May 1998 03:51:10 GMT, dfi...@tiac.net (David Field) chose
>to bless us all with this bit of wisdom:
>
>>On Tue, 12 May 1998 05:11:38 GMT, Soul_B...@yahoo.com (John Black)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Poll after poll indicates that eh general public is more likely to
>>>have a favourable opinion of Microsoft, and that government action is
>>>not needed. However, polls of computer hobbyists, professionals, and
>>>educators show that they have an overwhelming ly unfavourable image of
>>>Microsoft, and that government action is urgently needed. Why is
>>>that? Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
>>>likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
>>
>>I guess you must be a huge fan of MS, since you weren't computer
>>literate enough to post this message only once.
>
>I only got one copy of his message here. Maybe the people that operate
>your news server aren't terribly computer litterate. :)
It's UNIX-based, what do you expect?
>>
>>And to the real point of your question: The people who reply to polls
>>and vote against MS do so because they use some other OS than an MS
>>product.
>>
>>If it suits them, it's fair enough, but some folks just get their ego
>>mixed up with their OS. The reason no-one's using their OS (and they
>>must, of course, be smart for having picked that OS) is that there's
>>some dreadful MS plot.
>>
>>David.
jim
Willy wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 May 1998 05:10:46 GMT, Soul_B...@yahoo.com (John Black)
> wrote:
> >... Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
> >likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
>
> should work.
I think it's because we take the view _that_ things should work,
actually.
jim
--
j...@madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk | http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/~jim/
I'M THE BILL YOU OWE. IF YOU DON'T PAY ME, YOU DON'T LEAVE.
-- Bill Gates^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HStephen Donaldson
Jeff Read
M. Kilgore wrote:
> It depends on your approach, Gary. As you're fixing your friends machines,
> do you gently educate them about Linux or do you just tell'em Linux is
> better and then damn 'em for their ignorance? Too often, it's the later
> approach that many,( dare I say most?) Mac and linux advocates seem take
> when they advocate. It's much like the "Big Tent" in San Diego - invite a
> lot of people in and then kick'em out because they like some of the things
> going on. Too many times during the last election cycle I noticed too many
> conservatives that would gently lead people into the program - all the way
> until the person started asking questions that indicated that he wasn't in
> total agreement with the program and then out they'd go just as quickly as
> they could be labeled "Godless Liberal." No doubt that some were actually
> "Godless Liberals," but many were just moderate republicans and
> conservative democrats. It was just plain silly to cast them out.
This is how I feel on the issue.
Well, I'd like to say that most of us who love Linux are willing to
welcome new people aboard at any time. I try to warn people beforehand
that Linux does not have a "point and drool" style interface and that
using it successfully will take a little learning for someone familiar
only with Windows. It's rare that a person I've met has refused to
convert because of interface familiarity alone; more often, they'd like
to see an end to Blue Screens of Death but they're attached to one or
more particular Windows programs that they feel they need to keep using.
So then I suggest a dual-boot configuration and recommend that they use
PartitionMagic (a handy and easy-to-use utility) to repartition their
disk, and boot Linux as a secondary OS.
Sometimes I can't even get someone to try it so I say, Well, OK. I
realize that I'm not likely to convince a Jew that Jesus was the
Messiah, even though there are a few who have been so convinced. So I go
on my way and don't let it bother me. Many people, however, have at
least considered trying Linux and to me, that's meaningful.
A new faction of Linux users have come up, who believe that Linux is or
should be a hacker's OS, and that non-hackers who ask them questions
about Linux are lame and should be ignored or flamed. These are mainly
young high school or college students, like me. :) While I agree that
Linux should be a hacker's OS, it's not too hard to think enough like a
hacker to get it running, and to run Netscape, Quake, or your favorite
application on it. You need not be a Unix wizard to get the most out of
your Linux system.
> Good luck on being a libertarian, as a southerner, I've got a mean streak
> of libertarian thoughts myself. The trouble with being a libertarian,
> though, is basic - in order to accomplish what you want then you must be
> willing to play the game you choose to end.
That's the name of the game in the OS wars, too.... something I
sincerely wish that Richard Stallman would acknowledge, as it would be
easier for other more moderate folks to work with him on the GNU
project. He believes that all non-free commercial software is Evil, and
takes a "we don't need no stinking commercial software" stance w.r.t.
the Linux and GNU platforms when in reality Linux and commercial
packages benefit each other: the commercial package benefits because
Linux is a better OS, and Linux benefits because commercial software
attracts users, particularly those who are new to computers, to Linux.
Of course, once the commercial vendors move onto Linux's turf they often
find themselves competing directly with freeware products that are of
comparable quality, thus advancing free software in the end!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Read <bit...@geocities.com>/ http://genpc.home.ml.org
Unix / Linux / Windows Hacker, / Boycott Microsoft!
Anime & Sonic Fan, / Use Linux/GNU!
All Around Nice Guy / Let's keep the Net and the Land FREE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Read
David Corcoran wrote:
> <asbestos-suit>
> I'm not so sure, with upcoming Y2k crisis I could easily see him
> establishing a state of emergency and suspending the election.
> </asbestos-suit>
Well, you're not the only one. :) There actually has been a movement in
Congress to repeal the amendment that limits a President's term of
office to two terms.
Jeff Read
Tracy R Reed wrote:
> I just learned that my alma mater, Tehachapi High School, has finally gotten a
> computer curriculum. When I graduated in '93, they didn't have a single
> computer class. They have a nice network linking all of the schools together
> and to the Internet. What OS are they running it all on? NT. Why? Because MS
> gave them all of the software absolutely free. I am telling them about Linux
> and hopefully I can get a Linux server installed on their network to
> demonstrate it's abilities.
Really? I sure wish the guy who taught computer courses at my H.S. was
still around. I'd like to tell him about Linux. If he heard it from me,
he'd probably consider it. He's around 60 years old, and has been in the
industry since the heyday of IBM mainframes, but is relatively
unfamiliar with software newer than about 1990. He retired the year
after I graduated.
Jeff Read
David Field wrote:
> If it suits them, it's fair enough, but some folks just get their ego
> mixed up with their OS. The reason no-one's using their OS (and they
> must, of course, be smart for having picked that OS) is that there's
> some dreadful MS plot.
Something must be said for good OS design! Linux and FreeBSD draw upon
30 years of research and development in reliable, cross-platform
operating systems. Microsoft Windows draws upon nearly 20 years of
bug-for-bug compatibility with the old 8088-based IBM PC.
Jeff Read
John Alway wrote:
> Mostly because they are not well versed in rights. This _isn't_
> primarily a software issue. Nor is it a Microsoft issue. They're just
> the villain of today (it was IBM 15 or so years ago). It is a rights
> issue. So many people have no comprehension of what rights are that
> they think it's okay to get government thugs to go after their
> competitors, will promote it and will be quite self-righteous about it
> to boot.
I don't think Microsoft has a right to muscle its way into any industry
it sets its sights on, do you? Yet that's exactly what's happening.
I'm very familiar with what rights are, and what rights I have. I also
believe that corporations should have more limited rights than living,
breathing persons. Still, I've been the first guy to get on this
newsgroup and rant whenever Microsoft has had *its* rights violated, for
example, when some gold-digger was trying to cash in on a patent lawsuit
against MS over multithreaded operating systems. That was bogus.
Mind you, I'm not exactly rooting for the DOJ... but I *do* wish that
these Sun and Caldera suits prove fruitful. :)
Bernd Paysan
Proteus wrote:
> Clinton's economy is growing slower (GDP) than Reagan's.
> Carter's (another Democrat) economy also grew slower than Reagan's.
Well, there is hope that they also fall slower than Reagan's.
Reagonomics was a soap bubble, and the resulting crash of banks and the
stock market was very significant.
--
Bernd Paysan
"Late answers are wrong answers!"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
Jeff Read
"Mommy! Mommy! Can I go out into the Usenet?"
"Of course, my dear, just beware of the trolls who lurk in the shadows!"
Willy wrote:
> Because those type of people have a very selfish view of how things
> should work. To them, the computer is some sort of alter that they
> use to practice their "religion." They simply can't believe that
> there are people in the world that view the computer as just another
> tool that they use to get their work done. However, it is; and like a
> hammer, car, or microwave oven, it has to be easy to use. This is the
> class of people that Microsoft listens to and develops for because
> they constitute the vast majority of users. This class of user
> doesn't care about having vast array of configuration options; they
> don't have the time or desire to play with them. They don't care
> about source code, Java implementations, or any of that crap. And if
> you were to sit them down and explain it to them, they still wouldn't
> care. That because, to them, the computer represents only a very tiny
> part of their lives. They've got a real life...they don't need
> another. They've got real work to do; and it has nothing to do with
> computers. These people need turnkey solutions; and that's what
> Microsoft provides. And when things don't work right they need
> someone to call; right *now*. Microsoft provides that too. That's
> why end-users like them.
I like the term "solutions". It puts a hilarious image in my head of
Bill Gates wearing a pink fairy dress, waving a magic wand, and solving
all of our problems. Got news for you: Microsoft is like the "monkey's
paw" of legend: You wish for something and Microsoft makes it happen, or
so it seems... there are hidden consequences you may not be expecting.
Indeed, Microsoft has had the process of software development
backasswards for some time. In the Real World of software, we think,
"OK, we're going to develop this product. Let's get it WORKING first."
Then countless man-hours are put into writing a stable, efficient
package. After that, the developers, or maybe somebody else entirely
goes, "Gee, this is a nice product, and it works really well but it's so
hard to use!" And then they go about producing a nice GUI for it. Look
at LaTeX and LyX for an example of how this works.
In Microsoft's world, the priority is "We want to make this product
pretty and easy to use, and add this feature and that feature because
that's what {R&D | marketing} says our users want". Reliable
functionality is secondary, and in many cases, is compromised, leading
to frequent crashes, GPF's, and other errors. Microsoft doesn't really
listen to users, once it has made a decision as to what features and
fallacies will go into its products, you simply get used to it. They may
release patches on their Web site from time to time, but these are
mainly Band-Aids to cover up a glaring problem that exists within the
design of the software.
> These "computer literate" types don't like the fact that they have to
> pay for software (although exactly why software should be free has not
> been explained to my satisfaction.) They also don't like to see Bill
> Gates, someone who is basically a part of their field of programming,
> making so much money when they are not. It's jealousy.
Um, no. Some of us actually used to like Bill Gates. He was sort of a
living rebuttal to the notion that computer techie types were
tape-on-the-glasses buffoons who would get nowhere in life. Many of us
really don't care all that much about money, as long as we have
something cool to play with. :) Yes, money is good, but to hackers money
!= success.
> I'm a programmer that's also a strong advocate for users and I think
> MS products are far better than anything anyone else produces. No
> other OS in the world does everything Windows does. No other
> application suite does everything Office does. So they make the best
> products in the world, and for some reason they should be punished for
> that.
Well, it's good to see that you're a strong advocate for users. We in
the Linux community wish people like you could come out of the
MS-induced fog and start using their resources to make Linux more viable
as an end-user OS. MS does *not* make the best products in the world.
Ask anyone who knows anything about good software design. MS products
are among the *worst* designed and written on the market today.
You're right about one thing, though: Linux, FreeBSD, StarOffice, Corel
Office, etc. don't do things that Microsoft products do and do well:
Crash randomly.
Chris Johnson
Wow, all the loonies are out in force, in this thread. It must be a
full moon in alt.destroy.microsoft and the drones are mobilizing for
defense purposes ;)
Regarding the topic, I suspect it's simply because the more computer
literate you are, the more likely it is you can think, learn, and ask
questions about how things are. The more computer literate you are, the
more likely it is you can pay attention to at least one thing, learn at
least one thing. The more computer literate you are, the more likely it is
that you might have a dream of someday making a place for _yourself_ in
this industry, and perhaps even a place of some importance.
Today, that is not a feasible dream to have, because of Microsoft. No
other company, bar none, is as capable of _destroying_ people's dreams of
creating that niche for themselves in the industry- IBM was certainly the
last to hold that position, but they don't hold it any longer.
Why _shouldn't_ people dislike Microsoft for blocking their hopes of
computer industry free enterprise, for pumping out huge quantities of
faulty product, for teaching an entire generation of computer users to
expect mediocrity and call it excellence, to expect meaningless
whimsicality and call it progress itself, to combine other people's
'seemingly unrelated' ideas at random with no consideration for real
usefulness... and call it 'innovation'?
Even if you rule out _everything_ else, they're wreaking havoc on the
English language and _destroying_ useful words by assigning them absurd
meanings for completely selfish and greedy reasons. :P
Jinx_tigr, who does not like Microsoft (gee, no kidding?)
(aka Chris Johnson)
Andy Walton
In article <35596CCD...@stevens-tech.edu>, bit...@geocities.com wrote:
:David Corcoran wrote:
:
:> <asbestos-suit>
:> I'm not so sure, with upcoming Y2k crisis I could easily see him
:> establishing a state of emergency and suspending the election.
:> </asbestos-suit>
There is no legal basis for such a "state of emergency." Presidential
elections were held without delay in the midst of the Civil War, the Great
Depression, and World War II, and Congressional elections continued during
World War I and the War of 1812. It's difficult to imagine that the Y2K
mess will be worse than any of those disruptions.
:Well, you're not the only one. :) There actually has been a movement in
:Congress to repeal the amendment that limits a President's term of
:office to two terms.
Yes, but that movement was in the late 1980s, when the amendment meant
forced retirement for Ronald Reagan.
--
"He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see
that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled."
-- P. G. Wodehouse, The Code of the Woosters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
M. Kilgore
Proteus wrote in message <356412fb...@news.mindspring.com>...
:On Tue, 12 May 1998 07:27:55 -0500, "M. Kilgore"
:<mkil...@nospam.prysm.net> wrote:
:
:>:You will find this trend in other areas too. For example, most people
:>:approve of Bill Clinton as a president. But many people who have some
:>:knowledge of American history and the Constitution do not. They wonder,
:>:"How'd this jerk ever get elected into office?"
:>
:>
:>Shoot, Jeff, that's easy to figure out - more people voted for Clinton
than
:>Dole. The wise conservative will point out that less than half the
:>population voted for Clinton, but the democrat will respond that even
less
:>voted for Dole. It seems that more democrats have a better understanding
at
:>least one aspect of both American History and its constitution than many
:>conservatives, namely that you have to get out and be counted if you want
:>to participate. Far too many conservatives, in the belief that they were
:>taking the 'moral' high ground, chose not to cast a vote at all because
the
:>electorial process was beneath them. Some, like my conservative
:>brother-in-law, chose not to vote because it would make him liable for
jury
:>duty.
:
: The only reason that Clinton is President is because most
:people are too ignorant of the relationship between his actions and
:the "success" of the economy.
:
No, the ignorant lemming factor might explain why he's doing so well in
the polls but that's not what got him re-elected. I credit several things
for his election, most were just bad moves/statements that came from the
right, such as:
1. "Polls show that 80-90% of the people think Clinton places too much
faith in polls."
2. "Hilary tells Bill what to do, Liddy sure doesn't control Bob." And
then, of course, Liddy & Bob went on the King show.
3. Republicans shut down the government. It doesn't matter who actually
did, just who got credit for it... the republicans "won." This was also the
time that many of the locals in my part of the world found out that they
were the "they" that would lose out if government was shrunk too far.
4. The long list of potential republican VP candidates that were able to
conveniently excuse themselves from running with Dole. Kemp did something
good for the party when he stepped up, but I don't think his sacrifice for
the good of the party was appreciated.
5. The speculation on the net and talk radio that Dole should be paired
with a respectable democrat to make an unbeatable team. (Sheesh!)
6. Buttman & milk's dangerous! - what were they thinking? :-)
7. Gingrich
8. The insistence by the far-right that you weren't a true republican
unless you bought the whole package. More somewhat-conservative republicans
were labeled Godless Liberals than you could shake a stick at during the
last election, Bill picked them up by default. Surely the vote of an almost
true believer is just as good as the vote of one washed in the blood.
In short, Dole lost mostly because of a bad presentation than anything
else. Apple's got a similar problem in the way it has been presented in the
past. I think that maybe Jobs might be changing that, especially since he
seems to have put the message on the wall that old macs won't count much
anymore. That's a good move for the future as it will free Apple from
having to worry about those old '97 vintage macs so much.
mark
mark
M. Kilgore
Proteus wrote in message <35651652...@news.mindspring.com>...
:On Tue, 12 May 1998 06:13:13 -0500, "M. Kilgore"
:<mkil...@nospam.prysm.net> wrote:
:
:>
:>John Black wrote in message <3557da06...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
:>:Poll after poll indicates that eh general public is more likely to
:>:have a favourable opinion of Microsoft, and that government action is
:>:not needed. However, polls of computer hobbyists, professionals, and
:>:educators show that they have an overwhelming ly unfavourable image of
:>:Microsoft, and that government action is urgently needed. Why is
:>:that? Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
:>:likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
:>
:>
:>Personally, I think that the assumption that as you get more computer
:>literate you get the more you dislike MS is incorrect. My observation is
:>that the more computer literate people get the less they care about
Apple,
:>MS, et. al. and the more they care about just being able to do what they
:>want to do - that is they tend to worry more about application
performance
:>and less about system design.
:>
:>mark
:>
:
: I run across a heck of a lot of computer experts who don't
:have an ax to grind with Microsoft. The ones that *do* have an ax to
:grind are the most vocal, and they think that they should be the ones
:who do the talking for everyone else.
I think that the more literate you become then you become a little more
jaded about it all. The last processor chip family that caught my attention
was microchip tech's PIC16 family of microcontrollers because it offered an
inexpensive way for me to start adding smart devices to my system and was
cheap and easy to develop for. I've come to expect great speed increases in
processor speed as the norm now, so that doesn't impress me nearly as much
as speed increases did in the 6800/8080/z80 days. The OS's still, in quite
a few respects, haven't really caught up with the mainframe os's of the
70's so there's not really that much exciting in that arena yet. I did get
optimistic that OS9 would catch on because of CoCo and would lead people
into a 'nix type of system, but it didn't happen. I not sure that 'nix will
ever really catch on in the consumer market because it's too "computery."
Actually, the most exciting thing about computers that's happening right
now is that the appliance computer is finally beginning to catch on. The
idea that computers can and should be built that fit a consumer's needs
instead of being an all purpose power box is quite exciting to me as it
will surely cut down on the user education problem and those that develop
appliance computers will still need <G> those power boxes to do their
development on.
mark
John Alway
Jeff Read wrote:
>
> John Alway wrote:
>
> > Mostly because they are not well versed in rights. This _isn't_
> > primarily a software issue. Nor is it a Microsoft issue. They're just
> > the villain of today (it was IBM 15 or so years ago). It is a rights
> > issue. So many people have no comprehension of what rights are that
> > they think it's okay to get government thugs to go after their
> > competitors, will promote it and will be quite self-righteous about it
> > to boot.
>
> I don't think Microsoft has a right to muscle its way into any industry
> it sets its sights on, do you? Yet that's exactly what's happening.
What do you mean by "muscle"? Every time I've seen a claim that MS is
doing something wrong I find in the explanation _no_ violation of
anyone's rights. There is no _force_ being used, and contractual
leverage is _not_ force. When you have a _value_ to offer you can sell
it on whatever terms you wish, and if others accept those terms, then
there is no force.
> I'm very familiar with what rights are, and what rights I have.
I find that hard to believe judging by your response. Can you give me
a run down on what you believe rights are? Specifically, what rights do
you have and why do you have them?
> I also
> believe that corporations should have more limited rights than living,
> breathing persons.
Corporations are _property_, which an owner can dispose of or use
_within_ his sphere of freedom. Corporations don't, or shouldn't, have
rights, rather their owners do.
> Still, I've been the first guy to get on this
> newsgroup and rant whenever Microsoft has had *its* rights violated, for
> example, when some gold-digger was trying to cash in on a patent lawsuit
> against MS over multithreaded operating systems. That was bogus.
> Mind you, I'm not exactly rooting for the DOJ... but I *do* wish that
> these Sun and Caldera suits prove fruitful. :)
Sadly, Sun and Netscape are looking for government handouts in their
attacks on MS.
...John
David Corcoran
Jeff Read wrote:
>
> John Alway wrote:
>
> > Mostly because they are not well versed in rights. This _isn't_
> > primarily a software issue.
--8<--
> I'm very familiar with what rights are, and what rights I have. I also
> believe that corporations should have more limited rights than living,
> breathing persons.
<speil>
A corporation, trust or partnership is a person as defined by law.
However
a corporation exists as a creature of the state. It has *privileges* or
rights
which are granted by the state. Citizens have un-alienable (can not be
liened) rights
granted by their Creator. You owe you subservience to your creator.
Being that M$'s creator
is the state, their rights can be revoked or modified thereby (one would
hope by
due process however).
</speil>
Mayor Of R'lyeh
On Wed, 13 May 1998 10:32:27 -0500, "M. Kilgore"
<mkil...@nospam.prysm.net> chose to bless us all with this bit of
wisdom:
>
>Proteus wrote in message <356412fb...@news.mindspring.com>...
>:On Tue, 12 May 1998 07:27:55 -0500, "M. Kilgore"
>:<mkil...@nospam.prysm.net> wrote:
>:
[Snip]
>
>In short, Dole lost mostly because of a bad presentation than anything
>else. Apple's got a similar problem in the way it has been presented in the
>past. I think that maybe Jobs might be changing that, especially since he
>seems to have put the message on the wall that old macs won't count much
>anymore. That's a good move for the future as it will free Apple from
>having to worry about those old '97 vintage macs so much.
>
>mark
Copland RIP
Rhapsody RIP
The old vintage Mac owners seem to be winning. It doesn't look like
Apple is going to make any major advances in its OS anytime soon.
I'm starting to think that Mac users are a bunch of Luddites. Maybe
I'm just bitter because I was looking forward to Rhapsody for Intel so
much. I thought that we'd finally get a Unix that wasn't such a GD
PITA to use. Oh well....
Jeff Read
Andy Walton wrote:
> Yes, but that movement was in the late 1980s, when the amendment meant
> forced retirement for Ronald Reagan.
And in the late 90's when it may mean forced retirement for Bubba! The
way the polls are going, you'd think they'd crown him king or something!
Jeff Read
Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
> The old vintage Mac owners seem to be winning. It doesn't look like
> Apple is going to make any major advances in its OS anytime soon.
> I'm starting to think that Mac users are a bunch of Luddites. Maybe
> I'm just bitter because I was looking forward to Rhapsody for Intel so
> much. I thought that we'd finally get a Unix that wasn't such a GD
> PITA to use. Oh well....
Well, if the engineers at Apple thought anything like many of these Mac
nuts on the advocacy groups, then to them MacOS already has achieved OS
perfection; why bother innovating any more? :)
Steve Myers
John Black wrote in message
>have a favourable opinion of Microsoft, and that government action is
>not needed. However, polls of computer hobbyists, professionals, and
>educators show that they have an overwhelming ly unfavourable image of
>Microsoft, and that government action is urgently needed. Why is
>that? Why is the fact that if you are more computer literate, you are
>likely to hold a dim view of Microsoft?
I don't think that that is necessarily true. Polls can be made to say what
you want them to say if you know how to word the questions to give a
positive slant to your view. Microsoft hasn't generally gotten their
products right on the first attempt, but usually by the 3rd release they are
pretty much the market leader. If they were TRULY bad, no one would buy.
If LINUX (or any variant of UNIX) were ABSOLUTELY superior to Windows NT it
would be the market leader instead of Windows NT. As it stands right now,
the computer literate are installing Windows NT faster than all variants of
UNIX, OS/2 and Apple combined - by a huge margin. These are not for
desktops, these are for servers - supposedly the domain of the computer
literate. A lot of computer literate are leading the charge to create
hybrid operations; Windows on the desktop, UNIX as a data server, Windows NT
as an Application Server/Data Server.
Java may someday dethrone Windows (and C), but right now there aren't enough
features and the performance is horrible. The interoperability issues for
the various NC platforms makes the decision to deploy VERY questionable at
this point. A lot of its early adopters have pulled back for the time being.
Yes, I use Microsoft products (OS, Apps, and development tools), yes I've
used UNIX, Mac, OS/2 and CTOS on occassion. I think that right now,
Microsoft has the right to be their own company - if LINUX is going to
replace it let it do it on it's own merits, if the Mac is going to survive
it will do it on its own.
Right now there is no monopoly because if you want something else you can
get it easily. Mac? go down to your local CompUSA. LINUX? buy a box and
install it. OS/2? IBM would LOVE to offload some of that stuff. If you want
Gateway, Dell, etc. to install LINUX on their systems - make LINUX a
commercial success and ASK them for it - if enough people ask, they will
supply it. They are there to make money, if you can get enough people to
want it - they will build it.
Or........ get a group of friends together and form your own anti-Microsoft
PC company and pre-install LINUX on it. If there are enough of those
"computer literate anti-Microsoft people" out there you should be able to
join Gates et al as a billionaire fairly quickly.
Steve Myers
Proteus wrote in message
> I run across a heck of a lot of computer experts who don't
>have an ax to grind with Microsoft. The ones that *do* have an ax to
>grind are the most vocal, and they think that they should be the ones
>who do the talking for everyone else.
Probably more true than anyone would want to admit.
Herman
>The more computer literate you are, the more likely it is
>that you might have a dream of someday making a place for _yourself_ in
>this industry, and perhaps even a place of some importance.
This alone is good justification why a majority of computer literates
hate Microsoft. If I had an idea, sure I could sell it to Microsoft,
and have the $$$, but what if I would want to run my own company based
on this idea? Any ideas, anyone?
Donovan Rebbechi
Steve Myers wrote:
> products right on the first attempt, but usually by the 3rd release they are
> pretty much the market leader.
and how does being the market leader imply that they "have it right" ?
Does MSIE sell on its merits or bundling ? how about NT's web server ?
does it sell because of the NT Server licensing or because of its
merits... ?
> If they were TRULY bad, no one would buy.
> If LINUX (or any variant of UNIX) were ABSOLUTELY superior to Windows NT it
> would be the market leader instead of Windows NT.
NT has more applications available. Developers write for NT because
Microsoft make it (hence its a perceived market leader before it's even
released), not because it's good.
> As it stands right now,
> the computer literate are installing Windows NT faster than all variants of
> UNIX, OS/2 and Apple combined - by a huge margin. These are not for
> desktops, these are for servers - supposedly the domain of the computer
> literate.
Do you have some figures ?
(a) all figures I've seen on sales exclude linux, since it's free
(b) a lot of NT installations are for EITHER home desktop machines OR
end-user workstations. Not servers. NT is still more of a power-user
DESKTOP OS than a server OS. And most ISPs still use Solaris...
> Right now there is no monopoly
90% of the market is a monopoly.
> because if you want something else you can
> get it easily. Mac? go down to your local CompUSA.
people are afraid of locking themselves into the mac hardware. that's
the prob with the mac.
> LINUX? buy a box and install it.
so you readily admit that it won't be preloaded. OK. SHow me where I can
get a laptop without a windows license. For a sensible price.
> Gateway, Dell, etc. to install LINUX on their systems - make LINUX a
> commercial success and ASK them for it - if enough people ask, they will
Actually, I agree with you here, I don't think most linux users make
enough of a fuss to get the vendor to notice. I think they should at
least spell out that they will put linux on it.
> Or........ get a group of friends together and form your own anti-Microsoft
> PC company and pre-install LINUX on it. If there are enough of those
apparently, a lot of the linux people in the computer industry already
do this kind of thing.
> "computer literate anti-Microsoft people" out there you should be able to
> join Gates et al as a billionaire fairly quickly.
Breaking a monopooly is awfully difficult. There's the "chicken and the
egg problem" concerning 3rd party support which makes it even more
difficult than it would be in other industries. Microsoft already had a
desktop monopoly before a usable version of linux was released.
_____________________________________________
^[Dd]ono(va[nN])? *[Rr]ebbechi *$
\*\*\* (WW)?Web-(WW)?Weaver \\
Project Independence -- Linux for the Masses
http://independence.dunadan.com
teflon
Jeff Read wrote:
> In Microsoft's world, the priority is "We want to make this product
> pretty and easy to use, and add this feature and that feature because
> that's what {R&D | marketing} says our users want". Reliable
> functionality is secondary, and in many cases, is compromised, leading
> to frequent crashes, GPF's, and other errors.
You pretty much summed it up really. Microsoft makes software that users say
they want, and most users can live with a little less stability if it means
they get software they can use.
> Microsoft doesn't really
> listen to users,
Didn't you just say that they do?
Richard
Proteus
On Wed, 13 May 1998 15:59:40 +0200, Bernd Paysan
<bernd....@remove.muenchen.this.org.junk> wrote:
>Proteus wrote:
>> Clinton's economy is growing slower (GDP) than Reagan's.
>> Carter's (another Democrat) economy also grew slower than Reagan's.
>
>Well, there is hope that they also fall slower than Reagan's.
>Reagonomics was a soap bubble, and the resulting crash of banks and the
>stock market was very significant.
If you had read anything about the S&L crisis, you would know
that government regulation encouraged the problem. Reagan never set
this system up, so it is foolish to blame him.
Also, I assume you are talking about the stock market crash of
October 1987. The market quickly recovered from this crash, and the
stock market performance was still substantial under Reagan even if
you include the crash.
Proteus
>Actually, the most exciting thing about computers that's happening right
>now is that the appliance computer is finally beginning to catch on. The
>idea that computers can and should be built that fit a consumer's needs
>instead of being an all purpose power box is quite exciting to me as it
>will surely cut down on the user education problem and those that develop
>appliance computers will still need <G> those power boxes to do their
>development on.
>
>mark
>
To me, the most exciting thing that is going on is the rapid
development of the WWW. I think it is pretty cool that Windows, Mac
OS, Linux, OS/2, etc. computers can access information globally fairly
seamlessly.
I think that the commercial development of the web in the last
few years has been astounding. The desire to increase profits is
encouraging huge investments in information systems.
Proteus
>As it stands right now,
>the computer literate are installing Windows NT faster than all variants of
>UNIX, OS/2 and Apple combined - by a huge margin. These are not for
>desktops, these are for servers - supposedly the domain of the computer
>literate.
MS-haters will denounce any survey saying that NT is gaining
market share. I have never seen any MS-hater admit that any of these
surveys could even *possibly* be *somewhat* accurate, and yet they
want us to believe that they are the objective ones.
jedi
On Thu, 14 May 1998 04:34:28 GMT, Proteus <Pro...@Olympus.god> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 May 1998 21:39:21 -0400, "Steve Myers"
><swm...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>As it stands right now,
>>the computer literate are installing Windows NT faster than all variants of
>>UNIX, OS/2 and Apple combined - by a huge margin. These are not for
>>desktops, these are for servers - supposedly the domain of the computer
>>literate.
>
> MS-haters will denounce any survey saying that NT is gaining
>market share. I have never seen any MS-hater admit that any of these
>surveys could even *possibly* be *somewhat* accurate, and yet they
>want us to believe that they are the objective ones.
When people have been throwing themselves at your
wares since they were a cruel sadistic joke (when
compared to EVERYTHING else, even cheaper options)
squeezing those last few percentage points out of
the market isn't really remarkable.
Personally, I just didn't want to make Bill even
richer to make up for his past mistakes (Win 3.1
& Win 95) & had better things to spend the money on.
M. Kilgore
Herman wrote in message <355a512...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
:>The more computer literate you are, the more likely it is
Yes. It's remarkably hard to come up with an original good idea when it
comes to computers because there was and is such a backlog of good ideas
that were just waiting for the technology to arrive. In my greener days I
was always amazed at how many of my good ideas were already covered in the
literature of the 60's & 70's. What MS, Apple, Adobe, etc. have that I
don't have is the support staffing to handle the things I'm not good at,
such as the artwork, distribution, etc.
mark
Leo
>>the computer literate are installing Windows NT faster than all variants of
>>UNIX, OS/2 and Apple combined - by a huge margin. These are not for
>>desktops, these are for servers - supposedly the domain of the computer
>>literate.
Proof please. The numbers I see (and have provided below) show that Linux
alone has 1/6th the shipping volume of NT, and is growing very fast.
Comercial Unices have also grown in the server area, with NT only
having approximately 2 times their numbers. This does not meld with
your "huge margin" argument, as these numbers do not include OS/2,
Novell, or the Mac, which together make up a sizeable market and
which are the primary market that NT is "killing" since from
what I have seen, it is not currently considered by most "computer
literate" IT people as a useable replacement for Unix.
> MS-haters will denounce any survey saying that NT is gaining
>market share. I have never seen any MS-hater admit that any of these
>surveys could even *possibly* be *somewhat* accurate, and yet they
>want us to believe that they are the objective ones.
I, for one, will beleive you when you show me the money.
If you NEGFFCM (Noone Ever Got Fired For Choosing Microsoft) people
would provide some numbers that INCLUDE Linux, instead of ignoring it,
perhaps others could take it then. For my part I present the following
for your perusal:
According to IDC, as published in the June/1998 issue of Performance
Computing magazine (a Unix and NT rag), Linux is doing very well,
with demonstratable growth in the workstation market at about %150-%200
year to year and that with a VERY sizeable volume. (Note that Linux
can generally be used as a workstation and server interchangeably.)
The numbers:
Servers: 1996 1997
==== ====
Windows NT Server: 732,000 1,300,000
Unix: 619,000 717,000
Linux: n/a 200,000 (1)
Workstations: 1996 1997
==== ====
NT: no numbers provided in the report
Unix: 801,000 738,000
Linux: 750,000 2,000,000 (1)
(1) According to the IDC report, these numbers are for "revenue
producing shipments", which I assume, means sales of RedHat,
Caldera, etc. These numbers DO NOT INCLUDE the versions downloaded
for free over the internet or sold on low-cost CDROM bundles,
nor do they include the possibility that one CDROM can be installed
on multiple machines.
IDC can be found at www.idc.com
Cheers.
--
Leo