Gates: Prince of Liars
Joe Barr
In an incredible display of two-faced duplicity, Bill Gates showed why
he is known as the Prince of Lies tonight. Speaking to a London
financial conference via satellite, the infamous thief, coward and
liar told the audience that Microsoft is in favor of competition.
Gates, of course, champions business practices which have a single,
simple goal: the complete elimination of competition. Netscape and
Novell are only the latest two victims. For Gates to claim that
Microsoft favors competition is like Idi Amin claiming to be for human
rights, or for the paparazzi to say they respect the right to privacy,
or for a cocaine whore to say she is doing it for pleasure.
Gates hires executives like Ballmer and Neukom and Chase and others
because they are as slimey and dishonest as he is. The chicken-shit
geek deserves to have his neck broken for felonious fictions. He is
terrified of competition. He doesn't have the balls to stand up to
anyone on a level playing field.
And no wonder. With few exceptions his software sucks. Win95 is
still no better than 4th rate. OS/2 is not only stronger and faster,
it can multitask, a "feature" than MS just doesn't grok. Linux blows
it away. The new Mac OS8 towers above Win95. Win95 is a piece of
shit, and it's one of his best pieces of work. Without the desktop
monopoly to bootstrap it, without hie cowardly, illegal, predatory
business practices, Win95 would have been stillborn and the world
would be better off for it.
Gates lies as easily as normal humans breathe. Remember the NT
Workstation/Server fiasco, the strange malady we called "Socket
Fatigue"? Gates and his lying chickenshit product managers
told us that Workstation was not robust enough to handle more than 10
connections. That's how they stole the natural platform for
competitive Web servers from Netscape and O'Reilly and others. They
stole that platform from their customers as well, forcing them to move
up to NT Server. And just by coincidence, of course, the extra few
hundred bucks provided for a "free" MS web server, so why would anyone
need to buy a competitors. Andrew Schulman and others have long since
debunked those filthy lies when they revealed NT Workstation and
Server are byte-for-byte identical at the kernel level and only
through reading two secret switches at boot time does that kernel
learn whether it is to act as workstation or server.
That is just one example of how Gates, the lying slimeball, favors
competition. Just one more example of how the lying asshole runs from
competition faster than anyone else on the planet. He is a coward
through and through. A lying, sniveling, shit-eating sewer-rat.
Just today he bowed to the European Union's Competition Comittee by
agreeing to renegotiate contracts with ISP's which "fly in the face of
competition" according to the EU. Meanwhile the grinning, lying Gates
flips his booger-laden finger at the DOJ, the judge, and the American
public as he continues to violate the Consent Decree he promised to
obey in 1995. Why? Because he owns enough press and politicians in
the US to stretch the legal war out for years.
Gates is a two-faced lying asshole. He hides behind the ignorance and
lies of a submissive tres duh press. Michael Surkan, for example,
when he writes disinformation about monopolies, Fred Moody, for
example, when he takes Gates most preposterous lies as starting points
and then embellishes them. Fortune Magazine, for example, when they
run a phony poll showing how much America loves Microsoft. Hundreds of
others lick his boots just as eagerly.
It's time to stop the bootlicking. It's time to start kicking his
scrawny, lying cowardly ass. Come on, people, that hot wet yellow
stuff that's getting all over you is Gates pissing on the
public one more time. Stand up for yourselves. Let the Rats in
Redmond know what you think of them. And let those slimeball media
whores at Ziff-Davis and ABC and Fortune and whereever else you find
know too. Life is too short to put up with scum like Gates or the
phony pundits who praise him.
*=========================================================*
| The Dweebspeak Primer www.pjprimer.com |
*=========================================================*
Todd Kepus
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 03:19:23 GMT, pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
>In an incredible display of two-faced duplicity, Bill Gates showed why
>he is known as the Prince of Lies tonight. Speaking to a London
>financial conference via satellite, the infamous thief, coward and
>liar told the audience that Microsoft is in favor of competition.
[Lots of anti-ms/anti-gates stuff snipped]
> Life is too short to put up with scum like Gates or the
>phony pundits who praise him.
Uhhh... Joe, had a rough day? :-)
I pretty much totally disagree with much of what you said.
I believe Gates *LOVES* competition. He loves to kick butt and take
names. He *loves* to conquer. He wouldn't be able to do that without
competition.
You said many things anti-95 as well. I've started to use 95, and it
ain't that bad. In some ways, it's a lot more polished than OS/2 and
easier to use. So far, it hasn't really crashed on me. Yes, some
applications have crashed, but not 95.
I agree that 95 isn't very robust, but it certainly is good for client
use.
Then MS has NT, which, as you know, I think is a great OS. Better
than OS/2, better than Linux. (IMO)
Regardless of BG, I think they *do* have some good products. I wish
the competition was more fierce. I'd love to have a good NT
competitor.
Maybe Rapsody will be worth a look...
-Todd
Todd Kepus - Japan Hewlett Packard - todd_...@hp.com
--------------------------------------------------------
*The standard disclaimers et. al. (and stuff) apply.
"I am not an HP spokesperson, and any opinions presented
here are mostly likely _not_ those of HP's"
--------------------------------------------------------
Peter Thorsteinson
I strongly dislike references to violence, such as "deserves to have his
neck broken". You will have no effect on the world if you communicate in
this manner. Seek help with your problems.
Andrey Ryzhov
Todd Kepus wrote:
>
> [Lots of anti-ms/anti-gates stuff snipped]
>
> > Life is too short to put up with scum like Gates or the
> >phony pundits who praise him.
>
> Uhhh... Joe, had a rough day? :-)
>
> I pretty much totally disagree with much of what you said.
>
> I believe Gates *LOVES* competition. He loves to kick butt and take
> names. He *loves* to conquer. He wouldn't be able to do that without
> competition.
>
There is technical competition and marketing competition.
Bill uses user community to test his beta-quality products,
this is defiunitely a new word in technical competition ;-)
And he *absolutely* lies about the quality and functionality
of MS products. This is a new approach to marketing competition.
He loves it, OK; what is funny that some of the victims
love this, too...
> You said many things anti-95 as well. I've started to use 95, and it
> ain't that bad. In some ways, it's a lot more polished than OS/2 and
> easier to use. So far, it hasn't really crashed on me. Yes, some
> applications have crashed, but not 95.
So what is it worth without applications?
Do you need the OS up or the job done in time?
> I agree that 95 isn't very robust, but it certainly is good for client
> use.
>
What scares me is amount of users who don't care about robustnes.
Maybe they just don't know how it feels having a stable system?
Cheers,
Andrey
Bernd Paysan
Andrey Ryzhov wrote:
> What scares me is amount of users who don't care about robustnes.
> Maybe they just don't know how it feels having a stable system?
How should they? They know Gates says "it's stable", obvious this is
what you have to suppose a stable system is like. Gates says "there are
no bugs, only incompetent losers" (in the Focus interview), he's perhaps
right in the second part, but certainly wrong in the first. When I talk
about the "Billigotchi" which needs someone to feed it and to clean up
the shit, the typical response (from a Billigotchi user) is "Hey, you
don't tell me that your Linux runs alone". They don't asume someone to
be honest on this topic.
In general, people aren't honest when you talk about faults they did.
They have been punished for faults long enough (at school, at home, at
work) to learn not to admit; especially since they learned that not
admitting an error usually does the thing. You get along with it. Yet,
you don't get along with errors when you write a computer program.
Computers aren't self-correcting.
So the no. one topic for software is be to get people to admit faults -
that's always the first step before they'd correct it. The Linux model
seems to do this. People are rewarding bug fixes, especially if they are
fast. No reason to moan around. Positive feedback works much better.
--
Bernd Paysan
"Late answers are wrong answers!"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
Steve Shaw
Joe Barr wrote in message <34c56812...@news.prismnet.com>...
> [ snippage of boring adjectives and what might have been some interesting
if unoriginal ideas. ]
> Life is too short ...
Isn't that the truth. On to the next post.....
Steve Shaw
tims
<snipped>
Actually, Gates is doing a damn good job of making a lot of money. The
real fault lies in people too lazy/confused stupid to worry about what's
going on. Oh, hang on a sec, sounds like me. Down with the evil Bill
Gates!
Rob Eamon
Nice, emotionally charged rant. No substance, but entertaining to see how
many derogatory adjectives you have command of.
You seem to misunderstand the difference between wanting the game to exist
('favor competition') to winning the game ('eliminate the competition').
There are companies that consistently beat MS. Others don't.
r.e.b...@usa.net
In article ,
pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
>
> In an incredible display of two-faced duplicity, Bill Gates showed why
> he is known as the Prince of Lies tonight. Speaking to a London
> financial conference via satellite, the infamous thief, coward and
> liar told the audience that Microsoft is in favor of competition.
From the Microsoft Web Page:
Microsoft Announces Windows DNA for Financial Services for
Security Industry
Microsoft Chairman and CEO Bill Gates announced Tuesday that the
Windows® Distributed interNet Applications architecture for Financial
Services (Windows DNA FS) will be expanded to the securities industry.
Gates made the announcement during a satellite keynote address
from Microsoft headquarters in Redmond to more than 1,000 securities
industry executives and software partners attending the Financial Markets
Summit in London.
Currently, the manual reconciliation of stock trades necessitated by
computer systems that can't "talk" to each other costs Wall Street
firms millions of dollars and creates mountains of paper forms. To help
ease that problem and move toward complete automation of investment
transactions - known as "straight through processing" - Microsoft
announced that the Windows DNA FS industry framework has been
extended to the securities industry.
This is really scary folks. I have worked in a clearing house before and
the thought of having the entire clearing operation for the exchanges
subject to the reliability of Windows NT 4.0 is absolutely terrifying. A
few well timed "bombs" during market swings could bankrupt many
brokerages and wipe out customer bases. There is a real possibility that
Bill Gates could reduce the field from 1000 to 1, an unknown firm
controlled and owned by Microsoft or Bill Gates himself.
The NASD has used UNIX as it's primary vehicle for real-time trading and
has relied on ADP to provide the audit reports required to confirm proper
clearing of those transactions. The shift to NT servers could result in
destabilization of world economies in a matter of minutes.
The question is, are you willing to bet your life savings, house,
retirement funds, and current debt structure that Microsoft Windows NT
will never fail, never be comprimised by an overload or a generated
attack? The scary thing is that a single failure of such a system could
make the crash of 1929 look like a minor correction. A properly timed
attack could result in giving Bill Gates ownership of major portions of
the world's most important corporations.
The clearing function is so critical that a failure in this arena, or a
breach of trust can lead to impoverishment of anyone, at any time, and
the eventual ruin of everyone.
> Gates, of course, champions business practices which have a single,
> simple goal: the complete elimination of competition. Netscape and
> Novell are only the latest two victims. For Gates to claim that
> Microsoft favors competition is like Idi Amin claiming to be for human
> rights, or for the paparazzi to say they respect the right to privacy,
> or for a cocaine whore to say she is doing it for pleasure.
Microsoft has openly declared war on all non-Microsoft products, services,
and competitors. Microsoft has danced under, over, and around the law,
and openly defied settlements, contracts, and court orders. This is who
we want to trust with the financial stability of the World? It's insane!
> And no wonder. With few exceptions his software sucks. Win95 is
> still no better than 4th rate. OS/2 is not only stronger and faster,
> it can multitask, a "feature" than MS just doesn't grok. Linux blows
> it away. The new Mac OS8 towers above Win95. Win95 is a piece of
> shit, and it's one of his best pieces of work. Without the desktop
> monopoly to bootstrap it, without hie cowardly, illegal, predatory
> business practices, Win95 would have been stillborn and the world
> would be better off for it.
It was stillborn. In it's first year, it only captured 10% of the market
it had hoped to capture. With a potential market of 250 million PCs, 95
only captured 25 million. Even today, there are 80 million Windows 3.1
PCs (many of which are probably also running Linux).
> Gates lies as easily as normal humans breathe. Remember the NT
> Workstation/Server fiasco, the strange malady we called "Socket
> Fatigue"? Gates and his lying chickenshit product managers
> told us that Workstation was not robust enough to handle more than 10
> connections. That's how they stole the natural platform for
> competitive Web servers from Netscape and O'Reilly and others. They
> stole that platform from their customers as well, forcing them to move
> up to NT Server. And just by coincidence, of course, the extra few
> hundred bucks provided for a "free" MS web server, so why would anyone
> need to buy a competitors. Andrew Schulman and others have long since
> debunked those filthy lies when they revealed NT Workstation and
> Server are byte-for-byte identical at the kernel level and only
> through reading two secret switches at boot time does that kernel
> learn whether it is to act as workstation or server.
The scary thing is that Billy want to be your Banker. If his proctices
with NT and Office is any indicator, he will charge you 5% to store your
savings, and charge you the highest legal rate allowed by law to borrow
money, and claim that he is somehow immune to government regulation.
> Just today he bowed to the European Union's Competition Comittee by
> agreeing to renegotiate contracts with ISP's which "fly in the face of
> competition" according to the EU.
Part of the pressure was that EU ISPs were having scaling problems and
needed to switch to UNIX for some or most if their servers. In addition,
the CALS were getting expensive.
> Meanwhile the grinning, lying Gates
> flips his booger-laden finger at the DOJ, the judge, and the American
> public as he continues to violate the Consent Decree he promised to
> obey in 1995. Why?
Because he has deluded himself into thinking that he is above the Law.
So did Al Capone.
> Because he owns enough press and politicians in
> the US to stretch the legal war out for years.
He doesn't own the press, but he is one of their largest advertizers. He
is "The Customer" that the press is most concerned with pleasing.
> Gates is a two-faced lying asshole. He hides behind the ignorance and
> lies of a submissive tres duh press. Michael Surkan, for example,
> when he writes disinformation about monopolies, Fred Moody, for
> example, when he takes Gates most preposterous lies as starting points
> and then embellishes them. Fortune Magazine, for example, when they
> run a phony poll showing how much America loves Microsoft. Hundreds of
> others lick his boots just as eagerly.
When I worked for publishers, including Dow Jones, McGraw-Hill, and
Hearst Publications, I was frequently warned that we did not want to make
Microsoft unhappy. This was frequently iterated to the editorial
department. Microsoft spent $4 billion hawking 95, and another $4
billion hawking NT 4.0. It had also spent nearly $4 billion hawking NT
3.51 (talk about stillborn). During that whole time, publishers were
warned that friendly articles about Linux or UNIX would result in the
pulling of full page ads. In addition to the full page ads, Microsoft
also had control of the placement of co-op ads as well.
When Microsoft went into direct competition with local newspapers and
websites for classified advertising money, the local newspapers balked,
as did their parent companies. Gannet, Scripts-Howard, McGraw-Hill,
and Time-Life were all deeply gouged by that tactic.
We are already seeng glowing endorsements of Red Hat Linux 5.0 and
unfavorable press coverage of Microsoft. Microsoft's attempt to resist
government intervention fall on deaf ears. Judge Jackson is likely to do
to Microsoft what Judge Greene did to AT&T.
> *=========================================================*
> | The Dweebspeak Primer www.pjprimer.com |
> *=========================================================*
Rex Ballard
http://www.access.digex.net/~rballard
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Steve Shaw
r.e.b...@usa.net wrote in message <885435339....@dejanews.com>...
> This is really scary folks. I have worked in a clearing house before and
> the thought of having the entire clearing operation for the exchanges
> subject to the reliability of Windows NT 4.0 is absolutely terrifying. A
> few well timed "bombs" during market swings could bankrupt many
> brokerages and wipe out customer bases. There is a real possibility that
> Bill Gates could reduce the field from 1000 to 1, an unknown firm
> controlled and owned by Microsoft or Bill Gates himself.
>
> The NASD has used UNIX as it's primary vehicle for real-time trading and
> has relied on ADP to provide the audit reports required to confirm proper
> clearing of those transactions. The shift to NT servers could result in
> destabilization of world economies in a matter of minutes.
Relax. You'll be relieved to know that today's NT is stable, robust,
powerful, industrial-strength, high-performance, enterprise-ready, and 25
other words. Besides, a service pack will fix it.
Oops, there goes my harddisk chattering away again; 128 freaking meg isn't
enough. 'Scuse me.......
Steve Shaw
Steve Shaw
r.e.b...@usa.net wrote in message <885435339....@dejanews.com>...
>> This is really scary folks. I have worked in a clearing house before and
>> the thought of having the entire clearing operation for the exchanges
>> subject to the reliability of Windows NT 4.0 is absolutely terrifying. A
>> few well timed "bombs" during market swings could bankrupt many
>> brokerages and wipe out customer bases. There is a real possibility that
>> Bill Gates could reduce the field from 1000 to 1, an unknown firm
>> controlled and owned by Microsoft or Bill Gates himself.
>>
>> The NASD has used UNIX as it's primary vehicle for real-time trading and
>> has relied on ADP to provide the audit reports required to confirm proper
>> clearing of those transactions. The shift to NT servers could result in
>> destabilization of world economies in a matter of minutes.
>Relax. You'll be relieved to know that today's NT is stable, robust,
>powerful, industrial-strength, high-performance, enterprise-ready, and 25
>other words. Besides, a service pack will fix it.
>
>Oops, there goes my harddisk chattering away again; 128 freaking meg isn't
>enough. 'Scuse me.......
P.S. My Microsoft IE 4.01 state-of-the-art newsreader just crashed in this
newsgroup. This happens often. And this is an NT advocacy newsgroup.
Ironic, isn't it?
BTW, is this the interface MS will bolt ( 'scuse me, integrate ) onto the
next release of mission-critical NT ?
Steve Shaw
Soggy
r.e.b...@usa.net wrote in message <885435339....@dejanews.com>...
>This is really scary folks. I have worked in a clearing house before and
>the thought of having the entire clearing operation for the exchanges
>subject to the reliability of Windows NT 4.0 is absolutely terrifying. A
>few well timed "bombs" during market swings could bankrupt many
>brokerages and wipe out customer bases. There is a real possibility that
>Bill Gates could reduce the field from 1000 to 1, an unknown firm
>controlled and owned by Microsoft or Bill Gates himself.
>The NASD has used UNIX as it's primary vehicle for real-time trading and
>has relied on ADP to provide the audit reports required to confirm proper
>clearing of those transactions. The shift to NT servers could result in
>destabilization of world economies in a matter of minutes.
>The question is, are you willing to bet your life savings, house,
>retirement funds, and current debt structure that Microsoft Windows NT
>will never fail, never be comprimised by an overload or a generated
>attack? The scary thing is that a single failure of such a system could
>make the crash of 1929 look like a minor correction. A properly timed
>attack could result in giving Bill Gates ownership of major portions of
>the world's most important corporations.
>The clearing function is so critical that a failure in this arena, or a
>breach of trust can lead to impoverishment of anyone, at any time, and
>the eventual ruin of everyone.
You don't really believe any of this fiction do you? Isn't their a science
fiction Newsgroup or maybe a conspiracy group where this post would have
more relevance
>Microsoft has openly declared war on all non-Microsoft products, services,
>and competitors. Microsoft has danced under, over, and around the law,
>and openly defied settlements, contracts, and court orders. This is who
>we want to trust with the financial stability of the World? It's insane!
Which " settlements, contracts, and court orders" have they openly
defied....guess you don't believe in due process when it comes to the law.
>It was stillborn. In it's first year, it only captured 10% of the market
>it had hoped to capture. With a potential market of 250 million PCs, 95
>only captured 25 million. Even today, there are 80 million Windows 3.1
>PCs (many of which are probably also running Linux).
Funny use or definition of the term stillborn, for a software OS that sold
more copies in its first year than any other OS ever... by your skewered
logic what would it have to have done to be successful? Why does the
continued use of a companies older (WIN3) product indicate anything other
than its still useful or popular for many users, this isn't a fault but
rather credit to the product.
>The scary thing is that Billy want to be your Banker. If his proctices
>with NT and Office is any indicator, he will charge you 5% to store your
>savings, and charge you the highest legal rate allowed by law to borrow
>money, and claim that he is somehow immune to government regulation.
pap and absolute meaningless garbage
>Because he has deluded himself into thinking that he is above the Law.
>So did Al Capone.
you left out Hitler and Sadam....what laws do you propose he considers
himself above?
>He doesn't own the press, but he is one of their largest advertizers. He
>is "The Customer" that the press is most concerned with pleasing.
Not compared to soup, toothpase and a zillion other products or
companies...as advertising goes MS is pretty much small potatoes... based on
what criteria do you think the press worries about pleasing MS?
>When I worked for publishers, including Dow Jones, McGraw-Hill, and
>Hearst Publications, I was frequently warned that we did not want to make
>Microsoft unhappy. This was frequently iterated to the editorial
>department. Microsoft spent $4 billion hawking 95, and another $4
>billion hawking NT 4.0. It had also spent nearly $4 billion hawking NT
>3.51 (talk about stillborn). During that whole time, publishers were
>warned that friendly articles about Linux or UNIX would result in the
>pulling of full page ads. In addition to the full page ads, Microsoft
>also had control of the placement of co-op ads as well.
Held a lot of jobs have you...I wonder why<G>? MS has never spent anywhere
close to your 12 bil total....WIN95 rollout did take around $100 mil though.
I would think any publication would be concerned about the source of the
advertising dollar and I would think any advertiser would tend to run ads in
friendly places.... would anyone expect anything else?
>When Microsoft went into direct competition with local newspapers and
>websites for classified advertising money, the local newspapers balked,
>as did their parent companies. Gannet, Scripts-Howard, McGraw-Hill,
>and Time-Life were all deeply gouged by that tactic.
You expect them to embrace "more" competition...duh!!!! .........how is this
gouging?
>We are already seeng glowing endorsements of Red Hat Linux 5.0 and
>unfavorable press coverage of Microsoft. Microsoft's attempt to resist
>government intervention fall on deaf ears. Judge Jackson is likely to do
>to Microsoft what Judge Greene did to AT&T.
>Rex Ballard
Your efforts at predicting the future are just about as valid as your other
fiction.... why you don't feel there room in the market for MS and Linx is
beyond common sense...afraid to let the user choose? Soggy
Mike Hamrick
Joe Barr (pa...@pjprimer.com) wrote:
> Gates, of course, champions business practices which have a single,
> simple goal: the complete elimination of competition. Netscape and
> Novell are only the latest two victims. For Gates to claim that
> Microsoft favors competition is like Idi Amin claiming to be for human
> rights, or for the paparazzi to say they respect the right to privacy,
> or for a cocaine whore to say she is doing it for pleasure.
What!? She's NOT doing it for pleasure!? No more coke for her!
mikeh
Joe Barr
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:57:51 GMT, todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus)
wrote:
>I believe Gates *LOVES* competition. He loves to kick butt and take
>names. He *loves* to conquer. He wouldn't be able to do that without
>competition.
Perhaps you are confused about what the term competition means in the
marketplace. Generally it refers to a situation where two or more
vendors are offering competing products. The PC hardware arena, for
example, is a perfect example of what competition can do for prices,
performance, and quality. Windows 95 is a perfect example of the type
of crap you get when there is no competition. But wait for more on
that, I want to try and clear up your confusion over the meaning of
the term competition.
Here are 10 quick, off the top of my head, examples of
anti-competitive behavior by Microsoft. These illustrate perfectly
what Gates and his thugs in Redmond strive to do at every opportunity,
eliminate competition from the marketplace. Don't confuse the
competitiveness Microsoft shows in its lies, its predatory business
practices, its anti-competitive efforts with competition. I think
that is what you've done, by the way. You simply don't understand
what you're saying.
(1) Competing against Borland's best-of-breed RAD tool with vaporware
and giving the MS employee whose idea it was the highest possible
evaluation marks.
(2) Competing against OS/2 by signing retailers to exclusive
agreements
that prevented them from even stocking OS/2.
(3) Competing against Sun by violating their license agreement for
Java
technology, falsely advertising their basterdized code as Java
compatible,
and distributing their illegal/proprietary Java in order to segment
the development community and obstruct the goal of write-once,
run-anywhere.
(4) Competing against Netscape's web server by stealing its natural
platform (NT Workstation) by revising its license and lying about
the reason for doing so.
(5) Competing against STAC by stealing their technology and bundling
it in MS-DOS, with Bill Gates himself lying in court about their
actions.
(6) Competing against WordPerfect with false advertising claims about
market share.
(7) Competing against other operating systems vendors by forcing
developers to sign NDA's which prevented them from developing
applications for other operating systems for three years after
working on Windows 95 applications.
(8) Competing against Netscape by bolting their clone of Netscape's
browser onto the desktop and claiming it is part of the operating
system.
(9) Competing against Netscape by forcing ISP's, OEM's, software
developers, and customers to install IE4 against their will.
(10) Competing against Novell by spreading lies and FUD about
Novell's NDS upgrade for NT.
These are documented facts, not USENET conspiracy theory. Several
are part of court transcripts, either from Judge Sporkin's original
hearings on Microsoft's antitrust activity, or from the case which
proved Microsoft stole STAC's technology, or from the federal lawsuit
brought by WordPerfect which caused Microsoft to remove their false
claims about market share from their ads and slink away in shame.
Please note that each and every one of the 10 quick examples is
designed to ELIMINATE COMPETITION.
When I say that Bill Gates is a lying, chickenshit scumbag who is
terrifed of competition, I mean exactly what I say. The putrid little
puke simply does not possess the moral qualities required to compete
in the sense of the word that all the lawsuits are about. He is a
pathological liar. His statements to the financial community in
London about Microsoft's loee of competetition is prima facie evidence
of his condition.
That short list isn't complete by any means. It simply illustrates
how Gates runs his business. It also explains why the European Union,
the Japanese, a South American bloc, and a number of state attorney
generals are investigating and preparing cases against Microsoft for
their illegal anti-competitive behavior.
>
>You said many things anti-95 as well. I've started to use 95, and it
>ain't that bad. In some ways, it's a lot more polished than OS/2 and
>easier to use. So far, it hasn't really crashed on me. Yes, some
>applications have crashed, but not 95.
>
>I agree that 95 isn't very robust, but it certainly is good for client
>use.
>
>Then MS has NT, which, as you know, I think is a great OS. Better
>than OS/2, better than Linux. (IMO)
>
>Regardless of BG, I think they *do* have some good products. I wish
>the competition was more fierce. I'd love to have a good NT
>competitor.
>
>Maybe Rapsody will be worth a look...
>
>-Todd
>
>Todd Kepus - Japan Hewlett Packard - todd_...@hp.com
>*The standard disclaimers et. al. (and stuff) apply.
>"I am not an HP spokesperson, and any opinions presented
> here are mostly likely _not_ those of HP's"
*=========================================================*
Joe Barr
>You said many things anti-95 as well. I've started to use 95, and it
>ain't that bad. In some ways, it's a lot more polished than OS/2 and
>easier to use. So far, it hasn't really crashed on me. Yes, some
>applications have crashed, but not 95.
You've been very lucky. See http://www.pjprimer.com/dmm.html to learn
more about the architecture of Win95 and why it is thousands of times
more likely to crash (it, not the applications) than OS/2.
>Then MS has NT, which, as you know, I think is a great OS. Better
>than OS/2, better than Linux. (IMO)
I guess for some uses it is. It is certainly one of the best products
MS has ever produced, though I think they hit their high-water mark
with Excel. I also think NT has crested and the more glitzy GUI they
bolt on top of it the less stable it becomes.
But even with that, and even with giving it the edge in stability over
OS/2 by a slight margin, you are left these irrefutable facts:
(1) If you run a DOS app, you might as well go to lunch.
(2) It sucks at multitasking. MS has finally gotten to the point of
being able to do multithreading fairly well, but multiple applications
bog NT down fast.
(3) It is not as fast as OS/2 as a file and print server.
(4) It doesn't get the same gain in performance moving up to a
Pentium Pro that OS/2 does.
(5) NT is as acalable as a catfish. Even Linux's first shot at SMP
scales to 2 processors better than NT 4.0. It has taken this long,
believe it or not, to get NT to the point where it runs faster on 8
processors than it does on 2. Any Unix kicks its ass in this regard.
(6) MS doesn't do communications well, never has. Is that the reason
for NT's socket-fatigue? For the 10 concurrent socket max? While
Linux and other free Unix products can handle hundreds and hundreds
of simultaneous connections without breathing hard?
What NT has going for it, just like Win95, is a monopoly on the
desktop. Without that, nobody would give it a second look. It's just
not much. Novell kicks its ass all to hell as a NOS. Unix kicks its
ass as an enterprise solution.
Mark Jackson
: You said many things anti-95 as well. I've started to use 95, and it
: ain't that bad. In some ways, it's a lot more polished than OS/2 and
: easier to use. So far, it hasn't really crashed on me. Yes, some
: applications have crashed, but not 95.
Send me your IP address and I can show you how easy it is to crash...
No, not applications, but your entire computer!
: I agree that 95 isn't very robust, but it certainly is good for client
: use.
This is True.
: Then MS has NT, which, as you know, I think is a great OS. Better
: than OS/2, better than Linux. (IMO)
Please give some reasons why! (Can't argue with your opinion, which
you're certainly entitled to) NT costs more, does less, is slower than,
Linux plus you don't get the source! Instead, you get to pay for MS
support. If someone thinks MS support is a good deal, they can send
me the cost of the MS support instead. And I hereby promise to
answer the phone, listen to your troubles, and tell you to upgrade
to MS's new version... :-)
: Regardless of BG, I think they *do* have some good products. I wish
: the competition was more fierce. I'd love to have a good NT
: competitor.
To which I say: Sure! They *do* have some good products. But are
they worth paying for? The internet has changed the entire pricing
structure of software. It's now possible for anyone on the net to
do more for $0 than they could for $1000 of commercial software. Or
$2000!
For examples, you can buy an SSL server for $1000, or you can
use a search engine and get a free version. I've done that and it
works. Sure, you have to buy a certificate from VeriSign, or do
you...?
You can get buy a firewall, or you can create one for free in less
than 2 hours if you know what to do. Done that and it works.
In fact, it works great!
You can buy a nice graphical c++ development environment with
compiler, resource and layout manager, etc. Or you can get all
these for free. (You have to know where, but they're out there)
I mean of course gcc is free, but you can download entire graphical
application development environments for free these days.
You can get a *very* good graphics program for free, or you can
pay $500 for Corel or Photoshop.
Tell you what. If you *really* want to spend all that money, send
it to me and I'll lead you step-by-step through how to install all
this stuff, configure it, and use it. Gladly! No really, I mean
it... Send me that check!!!
: Maybe Rapsody will be worth a look...
Anythings worth at least a look! :-)
Rob Eamon
>This is really scary folks. I have worked in a clearing house before and
>the thought of having the entire clearing operation for the exchanges
>subject to the reliability of Windows NT 4.0 is absolutely terrifying. A
>few well timed "bombs" during market swings could bankrupt many
>brokerages and wipe out customer bases. There is a real possibility that
>Bill Gates could reduce the field from 1000 to 1, an unknown firm
>controlled and owned by Microsoft or Bill Gates himself.
>
>The NASD has used UNIX as it's primary vehicle for real-time trading and
>has relied on ADP to provide the audit reports required to confirm proper
>clearing of those transactions. The shift to NT servers could result in
>destabilization of world economies in a matter of minutes.
<sarcasm>
Oh, yes. I forgot about the part where everyone at NASD got
lobotomies. No doubt they'll just blindly install NT and move
everything over and not test anything. Just as they did when
they put UNIX in. Damn idiots.
</sarcasm>
>
>The question is, are you willing to bet your life savings, house,
>retirement funds, and current debt structure that Microsoft Windows NT
>will never fail, never be comprimised by an overload or a generated
>attack?
No more so than someone hacking into the Unix-based system.
>The scary thing is that a single failure of such a system could
>make the crash of 1929 look like a minor correction. A properly timed
>attack could result in giving Bill Gates ownership of major portions of
>the world's most important corporations.
>
>The clearing function is so critical that a failure in this arena, or a
>breach of trust can lead to impoverishment of anyone, at any time, and
>the eventual ruin of everyone.
That's why it's heavily monitored and will continue to be. Perhaps
at some point they'll give up on NT and go back to Unix.
>
>> Gates, of course, champions business practices which have a single,
>> simple goal: the complete elimination of competition. Netscape and
>> Novell are only the latest two victims. For Gates to claim that
>> Microsoft favors competition is like Idi Amin claiming to be for human
>> rights, or for the paparazzi to say they respect the right to privacy,
>> or for a cocaine whore to say she is doing it for pleasure.
>
>Microsoft has openly declared war on all non-Microsoft products, services,
>and competitors.
And the objectives of other companies are different?
>Microsoft has danced under, over, and around the law,
>and openly defied settlements, contracts, and court orders. This is who
>we want to trust with the financial stability of the World? It's insane!
Do we trust the financial stability of the world to the machines? Not
quite.
>
>> And no wonder. With few exceptions his software sucks. Win95 is
>> still no better than 4th rate. OS/2 is not only stronger and faster,
>> it can multitask, a "feature" than MS just doesn't grok. Linux blows
>> it away. The new Mac OS8 towers above Win95. Win95 is a piece of
>> shit, and it's one of his best pieces of work. Without the desktop
>> monopoly to bootstrap it, without hie cowardly, illegal, predatory
>> business practices, Win95 would have been stillborn and the world
>> would be better off for it.
>
>It was stillborn. In it's first year, it only captured 10% of the market
>it had hoped to capture. With a potential market of 250 million PCs, 95
>only captured 25 million. Even today, there are 80 million Windows 3.1
>PCs (many of which are probably also running Linux).
So if you created an OS and captured 10% of the market in the first
year, you'd be pissed? What is your guage of success is what? What
level of market penetration is required to get an upgrade from
'stillborn'? Does a vendor need to replace all desktop OS systems
in one year?
>
[snip]
>
>The scary thing is that Billy want to be your Banker. If his proctices
>with NT and Office is any indicator, he will charge you 5% to store your
>savings, and charge you the highest legal rate allowed by law to borrow
>money, and claim that he is somehow immune to government regulation.
>
The current bankers don't scare the hell out of you? You don't think
the practice of charging $1 to $5 for using an ATM is ridiculous?
You don't think a $5 surcharge for using funds from a cash reserve
account isn't skirting the maximum interest rate allowed by law?
You're giving credit (no pun intended) to an industry where perhaps
it isn't due.
>> Just today he bowed to the European Union's Competition Comittee by
>> agreeing to renegotiate contracts with ISP's which "fly in the face of
>> competition" according to the EU.
>
>Part of the pressure was that EU ISPs were having scaling problems and
>needed to switch to UNIX for some or most if their servers. In addition,
>the CALS were getting expensive.
>
>> Meanwhile the grinning, lying Gates
>> flips his booger-laden finger at the DOJ, the judge, and the American
>> public as he continues to violate the Consent Decree he promised to
>> obey in 1995. Why?
>
>Because he has deluded himself into thinking that he is above the Law.
>So did Al Capone.
More two-bit lawyer wannabes heard from.
>
[snip]
>
>When I worked for publishers, including Dow Jones, McGraw-Hill, and
>Hearst Publications, I was frequently warned that we did not want to make
>Microsoft unhappy. This was frequently iterated to the editorial
>department. Microsoft spent $4 billion hawking 95, and another $4
>billion hawking NT 4.0. It had also spent nearly $4 billion hawking NT
>3.51 (talk about stillborn). During that whole time, publishers were
>warned that friendly articles about Linux or UNIX would result in the
>pulling of full page ads. In addition to the full page ads, Microsoft
>also had control of the placement of co-op ads as well.
>
Alright, finally some useful information in this rant. Someone who can
share their own experience. This sort activity is generally asserted
by MS detractors ("Do you read anything not published by
Ziff-Davis?") but rarely followed up with real events. Thanks for
sharing your experience--it truly sheds light on the MS issue.
On the other hand, you seem to get around. You worked in a
clearinghouse. And also for publishers (not just one?). And have
the inside scoop on both. Seem to be widely different
industries. How can we be sure that you're genuine? Were you
a trader? Did you run the computer systems? If you ran computer
systems at the publisher, why were *you* warned about ticking off
MS or being nice about Linux? Or was it just hearsay? Please
don't take me wrong--I'm not questioning your integrity. I'm just
trying to put your comments into perspective.
[snip]
r.e.b...@usa.net
In article <885435339....@dejanews.com>,
r.e.b...@usa.net wrote:
> In article ,
> pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
> >
> > In an incredible display of two-faced duplicity, Bill Gates showed why
> > he is known as the Prince of Lies tonight. Speaking to a London
> > financial conference via satellite, the infamous thief, coward and
> > liar told the audience that Microsoft is in favor of competition.
In other words, he is looking forward to doing to Chase Manhattan,
Morgan Stanley, Prudential, and 1000 other financial services companies
exactly what he did to Word Perfect, Borland, Lotus Notes, IBM, Commodore,
Atari, Apple, Mac, DBase, and aboun 1000 other companies that disappeared
into obscurity.
> From the Microsoft Web Page:
> Microsoft Announces Windows DNA for Financial Services for
> Security Industry
>
> Microsoft Chairman and CEO Bill Gates announced Tuesday that the
> Windows® Distributed interNet Applications architecture for Financial
> Services (Windows DNA FS) will be expanded to the securities industry.
> Gates made the announcement during a satellite keynote address
> from Microsoft headquarters in Redmond to more than 1,000 securities
> industry executives and software partners attending the Financial Markets
> Summit in London.
Line up suckers, I want to make you an offer you can't refuse.
> Currently, the manual reconciliation of stock trades necessitated by
> computer systems that can't "talk" to each other costs Wall Street
> firms millions of dollars and creates mountains of paper forms. To help
> ease that problem and move toward complete automation of investment
> transactions - known as "straight through processing" - Microsoft
> announced that the Windows DNA FS industry framework has been
> extended to the securities industry.
>
> This is really scary folks. I have worked in a clearing house before and
> the thought of having the entire clearing operation for the exchanges
> subject to the reliability of Windows NT 4.0 is absolutely terrifying. A
> few well timed "bombs" during market swings could bankrupt many
> brokerages and wipe out customer bases. There is a real possibility that
> Bill Gates could reduce the field from 1000 to 1, an unknown firm
> controlled and owned by Microsoft or Bill Gates himself.
Of course, there will be no source code, no protocol specification, no
safeguards, no audit mechanisms, no SEC oversight, nondisclosure
agreements that prevent the development of compatible systems on more
reliable and scalable platforms. One glitch and the life savings of
millions of people become a Microsoft Bug. The usual Microsoft
diclaimers declaring that this software is good for nothing will protect
Microsoft for the potential liability of several hundred billion dollars
per day.
With no officially supported numbers for MTBF, MTTR, and MTLBF, the
underwriters must, in effect, write an insurance policy on a system that
has been known to result in liabilities of over $10 million in less than
1 day.
> The NASD has used UNIX as it's primary vehicle for real-time trading and
> has relied on ADP to provide the audit reports required to confirm proper
> clearing of those transactions. The shift to NT servers could result in
> destabilization of world economies in a matter of minutes.
During the 1 billion share trading day, Merrill Lynch and Charles Shwab
were liable for millions of dollars in failed trades and had no file
thousands of Margin Call extensions due to improproperly executed orders.
Many brokers had to cover positions caused by trades that were delayed
or lost. Several information servers, including the Microsoft web site,
were refusing connections, either returning "Server Not Available" or
"Too Many Connections" errors.
> The question is, are you willing to bet your life savings, house,
> retirement funds, and current debt structure that Microsoft Windows NT
> will never fail, never be comprimised by an overload or a generated
> attack? The scary thing is that a single failure of such a system could
> make the crash of 1929 look like a minor correction. A properly timed
> attack could result in giving Bill Gates ownership of major portions of
> the world's most important corporations.
Consider the risk in this light. In the last 12 months, there have been
several attacks, including Macro Viruses, ping of death, and addressing
unsupported ports which were capable of temporarily disabling NT servers.
Imagine if those attacks had been used only during the times when the
Dow was falling over 300 points.
With source code to all software, and detailed documentation of all
protocols, it would have been possible to at least "desk check" for such
vulnerabilities. Instead, investors were entirely dependent on the
integrity and ethics of Microsoft. In an industry where ethics and
integrity are absolutely critical, brokerages were putting their trust in
a company that has one of the worst reputations for integrity and ethics.
Other posts in the Prince of Liars thread itemize some examples of
Microsoft Ethics and Integrity.
> The clearing function is so critical that a failure in this arena, or a
> breach of trust can lead to impoverishment of anyone, at any time, and
> the eventual ruin of everyone.
Thus the title, Nightmere on Wall Street.
> > Gates, of course, champions business practices which have a single,
> > simple goal: the complete elimination of competition. Netscape and
> > Novell are only the latest two victims. For Gates to claim that
> > Microsoft favors competition is like Idi Amin claiming to be for human
> > rights, or for the paparazzi to say they respect the right to privacy,
> > or for a cocaine whore to say she is doing it for pleasure.
> Microsoft has openly declared war on all non-Microsoft products, services,
> and competitors. Microsoft has danced under, over, and around the law,
> and openly defied settlements, contracts, and court orders. This is who
> we want to trust with the financial stability of the World? It's insane!
Microsoft has not limited itself to just software. They have used their
charming tactics in publishing, media, and other "joint ventures".
According to their latest financial statement, they have over $10 billion
invested in future "victims".
> > And no wonder. With few exceptions his software sucks. Win95 is
> > still no better than 4th rate. OS/2 is not only stronger and faster,
> > it can multitask, a "feature" than MS just doesn't grok. Linux blows
> > it away. The new Mac OS8 towers above Win95. Win95 is a piece of
> > shit, and it's one of his best pieces of work. Without the desktop
> > monopoly to bootstrap it, without hie cowardly, illegal, predatory
> > business practices, Win95 would have been stillborn and the world
> > would be better off for it.
Rex Ballard
Matt Boersma
Steve Shaw <nospam_...@kc-primary.net> wrote:
> P.S. My Microsoft IE 4.01 state-of-the-art newsreader just crashed in
this
> newsgroup. This happens often. And this is an NT advocacy newsgroup.
> Ironic, isn't it?
Actually, I'm reading this on comp.lang.java.advocacy, where it has no
place. Please restrict your postings to appropriate areas.
Chuck Bermingham
[Lots of pro-Microsoft stuff snipped]
Todd Kepus <todd_...@hp.com> wrote in article
<34c5b771....@news.corp.hp.com>...
>
> Todd Kepus - Japan Hewlett Packard - todd_...@hp.com
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *The standard disclaimers et. al. (and stuff) apply.
> "I am not an HP spokesperson, and any opinions presented
> here are mostly likely _not_ those of HP's"
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
Gee--this from someone at HEWLETT PACKARD?
Questions:
1. Why are you *selling* technical literature, like PCL references, for
the LaserJet 5L instead of publishing them on the Internet?
2. If I buy, say, a Jumbo tape backup unit from you, why can't I use a
single diskette and the tapes to restore a Windows 95 machine, without
buying something extra from you?
3. Why do you make it so Goddamn difficult to have an HP printer and
another brand of printer hanging off an A-B switch under Windows?
4. When CMS owned the Jumbo uints, I used to be able to call a telephone
number for techincal support, and now I have to pay extra. Why?
I have nothing else to say. If I were to, I don't think anyone would like
me anymore. Hewlet-PACKARD????? hAHAHAHAHAHA....
Tim Campbell
Todd Kepus wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:14:38 GMT, pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
[speaking about NT}
> >(1) If you run a DOS app, you might as well go to lunch.
>
> may crash OS/2, you are right.
This is configurable in OS/2. It is completely possible to disallow
direct access to hardware.
> >(5) NT is as acalable as a catfish. Even Linux's first shot at SMP
> >scales to 2 processors better than NT 4.0. It has taken this long,
> >believe it or not, to get NT to the point where it runs faster on 8
> >processors than it does on 2. Any Unix kicks its ass in this regard.
>
> False.
>
> NT with dual CPU's exhibited up to an 80% performance gain than with
> just one CPU running Adobe Photoshop. PCWeek conducted the tests.
>
> An 80% performance gain is pretty acceptable for adding another
> processor. I don't think you can get to the theoretical limit of 100%
> gain. If UNIX can do this, then I'd agree that UNIX is a lot better
> at scaling.
>
> However, the only tests that I've seen are from PCWeek and the Adobe
> Photoshop example. Adobe Photoshop makes extensive use of threads
> under NT and 95.
Actually I think Joe's statement was the correct one. I've found that NT
is probably the worst SMP OS on the market. PC-Week did a benchmark
comparing NT Server with Novel and OS/2 which found that on identical
hardware, not only was OS/2 the fastest of the three when configured
with 1 processor, the single processor benchmark of OS/2 beat the 2
processor benchmark for NT by a factor of about 40% -- adding a second
processor to OS/2 boosts performance by about 90%.
> >(6) MS doesn't do communications well, never has. Is that the reason
> >for NT's socket-fatigue? For the 10 concurrent socket max? While
> >Linux and other free Unix products can handle hundreds and hundreds
> >of simultaneous connections without breathing hard?
>
> NT can handle more than 10 concurrent socket connections. I don't
> know where you heard this.
>
> We typically have hundreds of connections to our Lotus Notes servers
> here (quad Pentium Pro machines), and these servers are *fast* running
> NT. Over two thousand users are subscribed to the machine.
>
> NT isn't 'breathing hard'. Lotus themselves even document that NT
> servers are some of the fastest Lotus Notes servers around, especially
> on dual CPU architectures from Compaq and HP.
Ok, let me offer a little insight here. I'm posting from my personal ISP
and not from work. I'll not mention my employers name since officially I
do not speak for my employer. That being said...
Our company is, among other things, a major web hosting facility on the
internet. We host web sites, applications, and commerce for a lot of
very large "Fortune 500" corporations. Most of these web sites tend to
run on Unix boxes. In fact, we load dozens of sites onto single unix
boxes configured with all manner of applications and these boxes serve
down in excess of 1,000,000 hits PER HOUR without breaking a sweat --
during high-visibility media events we throttle our unix servers much
harder.
Now here's the interesting part. We USED to offer hosting on NT servers
as well as unix servers, but this service has been withdrawn because we
had far too many problems. Basically we found that if two different
applications ran on a single NT server, that server was not stable, we
segregating the applications so that multiple sites (running common
software) could exist on a single NT box, but we found that even this is
not stable. Ultimately we discovered that if we ran only a single site
with a single application on a single NT (well configured) *THEN* we
could manage to get the box to serve down about 1,000,000 hits PER DAY
(note that the unix spec was PER HOUR, not PER DAY).
We checked with other major Internet hosting sites and found that they
all had similar experiences and have agreed that NT is simply "not ready
for prime time".
Further, our Unix boxes can run SMP in High-Availability servers, in
HA-Clusters, Mirrored, etc. NT clustering simply isn't mature. A single
box can run with multiple IP addresses and hostnames which are very
nicely seperated (the public has no way of knowning that two different
web sites are in fact on the same box). I don't work as heavily with NT
systems as with unix systems, but the NT folks (Microsoft employees, not
ours) report that if you run multiple IPs on NT that you still only have
one set of ports (so you can't run a web server with an address like
10.10.10.10:80 and another web server on 10.10.10.11:80 -- because the
ports will conflict).
NT doesn't scale well, doesn't multitask well, doesn't integrate with
anything NOT made in Redmond Washington, and isn't stable.
I've noticed that the folks who say it does tend to be former Windows
3.1 users and Windows 95 users. Compared to Windows 3.1 and Windows 95,
I imagine NT looks pretty damn good. Compared to unix, well...
You also mentioned some stuff on Lotus Notes/Domino. I'll comment here
because we happen to have considerable experience in this area.
IBM/Lotus has admitted to us that Domino on Solaris is more stable and
preferred over Domino on NT. Naturally IBM would rather see us run this
on IBM RS/6000s with AIX than Solaris -- but they are first and foremost
a hardware company.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Timothy S. Campbell / tcam...@concentric.net
"Very funny Scotty... now beam down my clothes"
---------------------------------------------------
James Blackwell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> >[MILES OF ANTI-GATES REGURGITATION]
> >When I say that Bill Gates is a lying, chickenshit scumbag who is
> >terrifed of competition, I mean exactly what I say. The putrid little
> >puke simply does not possess the moral qualities required to compete
> >in the sense of the word that all the lawsuits are about. He is a
> >pathological liar. His statements to the financial community in
> >London about Microsoft's love of competetition is prima facie evidence
> >of his condition.
> >[EVEN MORE NAUSEATING TRIPE]
> I'm glad Bill Gates exists. I can live with his industry presence as
> long as it continues to annoy the shit out of people like you.
> Just a little hint Joe: You won't influence anyone by shoving your
> self-obsessed delusions down people's throats. If you really wish to
> influence people, there's a certain Washington state billionaire who
> just might give you a few pointers if you ask nicely... :-P
(/me grins). Actually, while his statement is more than a tad on the crude
side, I know a plenty of people that share his convictions, including
myself; they are just a bit more diplomatic about stating them.
My own personal interpretation of the matter is thus:
If people want Microsoft applications, let 'em have it. The only thing
that disturbs me is that through thier action to kill competing programs,
they also tend to stifle development for other operating systems. An
example? While netscape makes a version for linux, there is not, and as
per M$, there will not be, a copy of I.E.. Luckily, now there's the
HotJava browser, so on the rare occasion that lynx doesn't do it for me,
I'll still have a current gui browser to use in the event that M$ is
sucessful.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNMe8xYiRV/CZitewEQLwGgCg5f6BpLAikbHcz3FQb5vAYvFDfggAoP5j
rgGLMuE3pVFXwDSwLhILKW9j
=0XEN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Todd Kepus
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:14:38 GMT, pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:57:51 GMT, todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus)
>wrote:
>
>>You said many things anti-95 as well. I've started to use 95, and it
>>ain't that bad. In some ways, it's a lot more polished than OS/2 and
>>easier to use. So far, it hasn't really crashed on me. Yes, some
>>applications have crashed, but not 95.
>
>You've been very lucky. See http://www.pjprimer.com/dmm.html to learn
>more about the architecture of Win95 and why it is thousands of times
>more likely to crash (it, not the applications) than OS/2.
>
>
>>Then MS has NT, which, as you know, I think is a great OS. Better
>>than OS/2, better than Linux. (IMO)
>
>I guess for some uses it is. It is certainly one of the best products
>MS has ever produced, though I think they hit their high-water mark
>with Excel. I also think NT has crested and the more glitzy GUI they
>bolt on top of it the less stable it becomes.
>
>But even with that, and even with giving it the edge in stability over
>OS/2 by a slight margin, you are left these irrefutable facts:
>
>(1) If you run a DOS app, you might as well go to lunch.
Compared to OS/2 that lets DOS apps. have direct hardware access that
may crash OS/2, you are right.
>
>(2) It sucks at multitasking. MS has finally gotten to the point of
>being able to do multithreading fairly well, but multiple applications
>bog NT down fast.
I find the opposite to be true. I found NT multitasking much smoother
than OS/2's with the appropriate memory configuration.
Sure, NT sucks at multitasking if you are swapping like mad, but then
so does OS/2.
>(3) It is not as fast as OS/2 as a file and print server.
False. Even IBM's own tests indicated equal performance with dual
CPU's.
I wonder what a MS sponsored test would indicate...
>(4) It doesn't get the same gain in performance moving up to a
>Pentium Pro that OS/2 does.
Prove it. OS/2 still has 16-bit code in it which the Pentium Pro
chokes on.
NT has no such 16-bit code *at all*.
>(5) NT is as acalable as a catfish. Even Linux's first shot at SMP
>scales to 2 processors better than NT 4.0. It has taken this long,
>believe it or not, to get NT to the point where it runs faster on 8
>processors than it does on 2. Any Unix kicks its ass in this regard.
False.
NT with dual CPU's exhibited up to an 80% performance gain than with
just one CPU running Adobe Photoshop. PCWeek conducted the tests.
An 80% performance gain is pretty acceptable for adding another
processor. I don't think you can get to the theoretical limit of 100%
gain. If UNIX can do this, then I'd agree that UNIX is a lot better
at scaling.
However, the only tests that I've seen are from PCWeek and the Adobe
Photoshop example. Adobe Photoshop makes extensive use of threads
under NT and 95.
>(6) MS doesn't do communications well, never has. Is that the reason
>for NT's socket-fatigue? For the 10 concurrent socket max? While
>Linux and other free Unix products can handle hundreds and hundreds
>of simultaneous connections without breathing hard?
NT can handle more than 10 concurrent socket connections. I don't
know where you heard this.
We typically have hundreds of connections to our Lotus Notes servers
here (quad Pentium Pro machines), and these servers are *fast* running
NT. Over two thousand users are subscribed to the machine.
NT isn't 'breathing hard'. Lotus themselves even document that NT
servers are some of the fastest Lotus Notes servers around, especially
on dual CPU architectures from Compaq and HP.
I'd double check your facts.
>
>What NT has going for it, just like Win95, is a monopoly on the
>desktop.
Wrong.
MS definitely does not have a monopoly on the desktop with NT. People
are *choosing* NT to be used because 95 sucks and everybody knows it
in IT.
The reason why HP preloads NT on high end systems is because customers
are asking for it. Believe me, if customers started asking for Linux
or OS/2 en masse, we'd be preloading those too.
Facts are, NT is selling like HOTCAKES. MS isn't forcing NT down
anybodies throats.
> Without that, nobody would give it a second look.
Wrong. NT had a slow start, and when people realized how good it was,
they switched.
Even Ominor, The Inhuman switched.
How can you refute the facts?
> It's just
>not much. Novell kicks its ass all to hell as a NOS.
I'd disagree with you here, except that the directory services are
nice (almost essential).
> Unix kicks its
>ass as an enterprise solution.
So far, UNIX is definitely preferred as a platform to do
mega-industrial applications.
My question is, how long will this last?
-Todd
>
>
>*=========================================================*
>| The Dweebspeak Primer www.pjprimer.com |
>*=========================================================*
Todd Kepus - Japan Hewlett Packard - todd_...@hp.com
Mike Bristow
[newsgroups trimmed; I don't think comp.lang.java.advocacy wants this]
In article <34c6f733....@news.corp.hp.com>,
todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus) writes:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:14:38 GMT, pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
>
>> (5) NT is as acalable as a catfish. Even Linux's first shot at SMP
>> scales to 2 processors better than NT 4.0. It has taken this long,
>> believe it or not, to get NT to the point where it runs faster on 8
>> processors than it does on 2. Any Unix kicks its ass in this
>> regard.
>
> False.
True.
> NT with dual CPU's exhibited up to an 80% performance gain than with
> just one CPU running Adobe Photoshop. PCWeek conducted the tests.
Scalable doesn NOT mean `you can have 2 CPU's'. It means `you can
have many CPU's' (in this context). Did you not see where Joe said
``...it runs faster on 8 processors...''. 8 is not 2.
> An 80% performance gain is pretty acceptable for adding another
> processor. I don't think you can get to the theoretical limit of 100%
> gain. If UNIX can do this, then I'd agree that UNIX is a lot better
> at scaling.
80% is not acceptable for going from 1 processor to 8. Which is what
Joe said, and you have not responded to.
>>(6) MS doesn't do communications well, never has. Is that the reason
>>for NT's socket-fatigue? For the 10 concurrent socket max? While
>>Linux and other free Unix products can handle hundreds and hundreds
>>of simultaneous connections without breathing hard?
>
> NT can handle more than 10 concurrent socket connections. I don't
> know where you heard this.
I understand that NTs can, NTw can't.
--
Mike Bristow mich...@demon.net
NOC FL Administrator Demon Internet Ltd
Sales: +44 (0)181-371 1234 Support: +44 (0)181-371 1010
Bob O
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 03:28:17, "Soggy" <so...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> >The question is, are you willing to bet your life savings, house,
> >retirement funds, and current debt structure that Microsoft Windows NT
> >will never fail, never be comprimised by an overload or a generated
> >attack? The scary thing is that a single failure of such a system could
> >make the crash of 1929 look like a minor correction. A properly timed
> >attack could result in giving Bill Gates ownership of major portions of
> >the world's most important corporations.
> >The clearing function is so critical that a failure in this arena, or a
> >breach of trust can lead to impoverishment of anyone, at any time, and
> >the eventual ruin of everyone.
>
> You don't really believe any of this fiction do you? Isn't their a science
> fiction Newsgroup or maybe a conspiracy group where this post would have
> more relevance
I do not go along to any extent with the Bill Gates takeover part, but a
single code base is a very scary thing.
You can look to nature for the answer. Diversity of gene pools is very
heavily selected method of reproduction.
The reason is obvious. One virus, one bacteria and the entire species
could be toast. But diversity in genes builds various defenses making the
spread of new and unusual viruses usually a less than completely successful
event.
Java is a far better design because it allows for diversity where
uniformity is not necessary.
Bob O - Computing for fun
Mattias Nilsson
licence thing..
Bernd Paysan
Chuck Bermingham wrote:
> 1. Why are you *selling* technical literature, like PCL references, for
> the LaserJet 5L instead of publishing them on the Internet?
That seems to be a general trend. I've three printer manuals now: one
for a NEC P6, one for a HP 4L, and one for a BJC-7000. The one for the
P6 has a 300 pages appendix, where every excape sequence is explained in
detail. The 4L manual has a 30 page appendix which explains the more
important part of PCL. And guess what the BJC-7000 "manual" has as
technical reference? Nothing. I feel quite insulted by the language they
use in this non-technical "manual". But at least the technical staff
aren't such morons and know how to construct printers.
> 2. If I buy, say, a Jumbo tape backup unit from you, why can't I use a
> single diskette and the tapes to restore a Windows 95 machine, without
> buying something extra from you?
Get a Linux rescue disk. Use the tar that comes with it to backup and
restore the disk. I think it's really a joke that you get backup tools
which fail to do the thing backups are for: recovery. But since most
people never need a complete restore, and often never ever touch the
backup tapes again (other than to write a new backup onto the tape),
it's easy to understand how anybody can get along with it.
Philip Brown
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 02:20:54 GMT, todd_...@hp.com wrote:
>We typically have hundreds of connections to our Lotus Notes servers
>here (quad Pentium Pro machines), and these servers are *fast* running
>NT. Over two thousand users are subscribed to the machine.
>
>NT isn't 'breathing hard'. Lotus themselves even document that NT
>servers are some of the fastest Lotus Notes servers around, especially
>on dual CPU architectures from Compaq and HP.
"some of the fastest Lotus Notes servers".
Gee, there's an important statement.
How many alternatives are there? :-)
--
[trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
--------------------------------------------------
"initiating.. 'getting the hell out of here' maneouver" - Lennier, babylon5
Rob Eamon
Todd Kepus wrote in message <34c6f733....@news.corp.hp.com>...
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:14:38 GMT, pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:57:51 GMT, todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus)
>>wrote:
>>
[snip]
>
>>(6) MS doesn't do communications well, never has. Is that the reason
>>for NT's socket-fatigue? For the 10 concurrent socket max? While
>>Linux and other free Unix products can handle hundreds and hundreds
>>of simultaneous connections without breathing hard?
>
>NT can handle more than 10 concurrent socket connections. I don't
>know where you heard this.
The 10 concurrent connections is only a licensing limitation. It has
nothing to do with the underlying technology--a point that vendors
such as O'Reilly (WebSite) and others are somewhat miffed about.
[snip]
>> Without that, nobody would give it a second look.
>
>Wrong. NT had a slow start, and when people realized how good it was,
>they switched.
>
>Even Ominor, The Inhuman switched.
NT became good over time. 3.1 was pitiful. 3.5 was good. 4.0 put the
pretty face on and *that's* when NT starting really taking off.
Rob Eamon
James Blackwell wrote in message ...
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
>> >[MILES OF ANTI-GATES REGURGITATION]
>> >terrifed of competition, I mean exactly what I say. The putrid little
>> >puke simply does not possess the moral qualities required to compete
>> >in the sense of the word that all the lawsuits are about. He is a
>> >pathological liar. His statements to the financial community in
>> >of his condition.
>> >[EVEN MORE NAUSEATING TRIPE]
>
>> I'm glad Bill Gates exists. I can live with his industry presence as
>> long as it continues to annoy the shit out of people like you.
>> Just a little hint Joe: You won't influence anyone by shoving your
>> self-obsessed delusions down people's throats. If you really wish to
>> influence people, there's a certain Washington state billionaire who
>> just might give you a few pointers if you ask nicely... :-P
>
>(/me grins). Actually, while his statement is more than a tad on the crude
>side, I know a plenty of people that share his convictions, including
>myself; they are just a bit more diplomatic about stating them.
>
>My own personal interpretation of the matter is thus:
>
>If people want Microsoft applications, let 'em have it. The only thing
>that disturbs me is that through thier action to kill competing programs,
>they also tend to stifle development for other operating systems. An
>example? While netscape makes a version for linux, there is not, and as
>per M$, there will not be, a copy of I.E.. Luckily, now there's the
>HotJava browser, so on the rare occasion that lynx doesn't do it for me,
>I'll still have a current gui browser to use in the event that M$ is
>sucessful.
So now they stifle development by deciding to *not* provide a product
on a particular platform? Good grief. Damned if they do, damned if
they don't. One thing they do have going for them is *focus*. NS, I'm
sure, has a hell of a time supporting some 17 platforms. Is it a wonder
they have trouble keeping up sometimes?
r.e.b...@usa.net
> Held a lot of jobs have you...I wonder why<G>?
Actually, I was a consultant and kept getting better and better offers 8-)
Most of my employers have made at least one million dollars per month
based on acting on my reccomendations. One had increased there net
by over $1 million/day.
Just because something appears to be free does not mean that it has
no value. Vincent Van Gogh sold one painting for $50. Today, his
paintings set world records at auctions.
> MS has never spent anywhere
> close to your 12 bil total....WIN95 rollout did take around $100 mil though.
MS had a total advertizing budget of over $8 billion in the period from
1991 (the announcement of NT) to 1996 (the release of Windows 95).
Yes, much of that was Co-Op, or ads for Office, Word, and all of the
other Microsoft Products. The key point is that every publisher was
very aware that Microsoft did NOT want positive coverage of UNIX,
TCP/IP, or Linux (available in 1992).
> I would think any publication would be concerned about the source of the
> advertising dollar and I would think any advertiser would tend to run ads in
> friendly places.... would anyone expect anything else?
No. But when one uses the information provided in trade journals heavily
funded by a single customer (Microsoft), it is not necessarily a reliable
source of accurate information. When AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were
placing full page ads, they claimed that the Internet was unreliable,
unsecure, and would incapable of supporting more than a million users.
Word got out to publication that Weren't dependent on Microsoft that the
technology used on the internet was not only reliable, but had been
designed by the DOD to guarantee "last strike" capability in the
aftermath of a nuclear haulocaust.
> >When Microsoft went into direct competition with local newspapers and
> >websites for classified advertising money, the local newspapers balked,
> >as did their parent companies. Gannet, Scripts-Howard, McGraw-Hill,
> >and Time-Life were all deeply gouged by that tactic.
> You expect them to embrace "more" competition...duh!!!! .........how is this
> gouging?
Microsoft had entered into several "joint ventures" in which almost a
hundred publishers worked closely with Microsoft. Microsoft learned as
much as they could about the industry, raided key talent, and identified
the most profitable portion of the business and went right for the
juggular.
You can guess what Microsoft will do when it gets into the financial
services industry. If Microsoft has it's way, 20% of your income will
end up in Microsoft's pocket once it can identify the most vulnerable
and profitable venues.
> >We are already seeng glowing endorsements of Red Hat Linux 5.0 and
> >unfavorable press coverage of Microsoft. Microsoft's attempt to resist
> >government intervention fall on deaf ears. Judge Jackson is likely to do
> >to Microsoft what Judge Greene did to AT&T.
> >Rex Ballard
>
> Your efforts at predicting the future are just about as valid as your other
> fiction.... why you don't feel there's room in the market for MS and Linux is
> beyond common sense...afraid to let the user choose? Soggy
I have been saying all along that Linux will probably only capture 40% to
60% of what is currently the "Microsoft" market. Bill Gates on the other
hand has already set is sites on blowing away Sun and then other UNIX
vendors and claim his "rightful share" of the server market (95% with the
remainder being legacy systems and "crackpots").
Unfortunately, Microsoft only likes competition when it knows it will win
a lion's share of a market it does not currently have. It does not like
anyone competing in it's back yard. This is especially true of Linux
and Intel based UNIX.
r.e.b...@usa.net
In article <34c6b...@news.pacifier.com>,
If someone had told me back in 1977 that Bill Gates would hold monopolies
on nearly every major software market, and would be the richest man on
earth and would be able to openly and publicly defy a Federal Court
Judge, AND the Department of Justice, I would have thought them crazy.
He had just gone to a computer show in Kansas City and called his own
customers, dealers, and users "Pirates, Thieves, and Swindlers", because
they didn't want to pay $500/copy of a BASIC interpreter that it's
competitors were selling for $50 each.
When Gates got MS-DOS, I started studying his tactics. Gates is a lousy
programmer, but he's a master at creating weasel-word contracts and
manipulating the legal system to his advantage. Al Capone used
tommy-guns, Gates uses some of the best lawyers money can buy.
> >Microsoft has openly declared war on all non-Microsoft products, services,
> >and competitors. Microsoft has danced under, over, and around the law,
> >and openly defied settlements, contracts, and court orders. This is who
> >we want to trust with the financial stability of the World? It's insane!
>
> Which " settlements, contracts, and court orders" have they openly
> defied....guess you don't believe in due process when it comes to the law.
The settlement with DOJ, settlements with Apple, IBM, Boreland, Novell,
and many others. When Microsoft settles, you think Gates is going to
give you what you want. Instead, there is a "booby trap" in the wording
that gives Gates the right to do exactly what you were trying to prevent.
> >It was stillborn. In it's first year, it only captured 10% of the market
> >it had hoped to capture. With a potential market of 250 million PCs, 95
> >only captured 25 million. Even today, there are 80 million Windows 3.1
> >PCs (many of which are probably also running Linux).
>
> Funny use or definition of the term stillborn, for a software OS that sold
> more copies in its first year than any other OS ever... by your skewered
> logic what would it have to have done to be successful? Why does the
> continued use of a companies older (WIN3) product indicate anything other
> than its still useful or popular for many users, this isn't a fault but
> rather credit to the product.
Microsoft already had 95% of the PC market, over 200 million PCs. A
system that could have run in even the machines purchased only 1 year
prior could have given him 80 million in the first year. Instead, it
took over 2 years to reach that same figure. The irony is that it is
already obsolete, according to Microsoft's thinking.
> >The scary thing is that Billy wants to be your Banker. If his proctices
> >with NT and Office is any indicator, he will charge you 5% to store your
> >savings, and charge you the highest legal rate allowed by law to borrow
> >money, and claim that he is somehow immune to government regulation.
>
> pap and absolute meaningless garbage
Gates has moved into many areas no one expected. He's now a publisher,
he's got control of several key industries, and there is nothing to
prevent him from using hidden trap-doors in Microsoft software to get any
information he wants and use it in the most damaging way possible.
> >Because he has deluded himself into thinking that he is above the Law.
> >So did Al Capone.
>
> you left out Hitler and Sadam....what laws do you propose he considers
> himself above?
The Sherman Anti-Trust act, the Clayton Act, the Uniform Commercial Code,
RICO, just for starters.
> >He doesn't own the press, but he is one of their largest advertizers. He
> >is "The Customer" that the press is most concerned with pleasing.
>
> Not compared to soup, toothpase and a zillion other products or
> companies...as advertising goes MS is pretty much small potatoes... based on
> what criteria do you think the press worries about pleasing MS?
How many brands of soup are there? There are several major makers of
soap, toothpaste, and even food and cars. Microsoft is the only major
player in the PC OS market, has about 80% of the Office Suite market,
and co-ops with Manufacturers who comprise 95% of the market.
Microsoft is the key advertiser in most PC Magazines. According to most
of these magazines, Windows 3.1 was more reliable than UNIX.
Newspapers who are less dependent on Microsoft for revenue are much
less generous in their treatment of Microsoft. They are also giving Sun,
Linux, and IBM much more generous coverage.
I still pose the question:
Are you willing to bet everything you have and ever will have, that you
will never have to reboot an NT server during the Trading day?
Are you willing to bet everything you have that Microsoft will not
maximize it's profits as much as possible once it has it's hands on the
jugular veins of the world's financial institutions?
Bill Gates is worth $60 billion. That's almost $2000 from every household
in the United States. In today's money, that's enough to buy a new
computer, a new TV, a new Stereo, and a new Refrigerator. What would
you do with your $2000? What is HE doing with your $2000?
Rex Ballard
http://www.access.net/~rballard
Chris
> I'm glad Bill Gates exists. I can live with his industry presence as
It's hard to think of anything positive to say about your kind of
thinking, though it's not uncommon. MS supporters very commonly react
more to the attitude of MS detractors than to actual technical issues,
while at the same time painting the anti-MS forces as knee-jerk
reactionaries. I suppose it's not surprising; to actually support MS and
their actions, on their own merits, is baffling and nothing short of
immoral.
Eric Bennett
Rob Eamon wrote:
> The 10 concurrent connections is only a licensing limitation. It has
> nothing to do with the underlying technology--a point that vendors
> such as O'Reilly (WebSite) and others are somewhat miffed about.
Actually, my recollection is that it's worse than that. I recall the
license limiting you to ten connections (ten unique hosts) in a ten
minute period, not ten concurrent connections.
--
Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com), Cornell University Biochemistry
Department
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb (Follow "About Me" link for PGP key)
There is no such thing as a useless feature, only computers too slow to
deal with them. - Nathan Hughes
Tracy R Reed
Rob Eamon <rre...@idahopower.bitmosphere.com> wrote:
>they don't. One thing they do have going for them is *focus*. NS, I'm
>sure, has a hell of a time supporting some 17 platforms. Is it a wonder
>they have trouble keeping up sometimes?
In the Unix world, supporting many multiple platforms is generally not that
big of a deal. Most software I use these days compiles on many different
platforms.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
"Administering a Linux server is no more difficult than properly running
Windows NT."
-- Infoworld, November 24, 1997
Joe Barr
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 02:20:54 GMT, todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus)
wrote:
>>(1) If you run a DOS app, you might as well go to lunch.
>
>Compared to OS/2 that lets DOS apps. have direct hardware access that
>may crash OS/2, you are right.
NT is *slightly* more robust, that's all. There is no huge delta
between and NT and OS/2 stability like there is between Win95 and
either OS/2 or NT. Check Schulman's home page for the stats.
In any event, you are avoiding responding to my point. NT sucks at
running DOS applicattions. It sucks at running DOS applications no
matter what OS/2 does with them.
>>(2) It sucks at multitasking. MS has finally gotten to the point of
>>being able to do multithreading fairly well, but multiple applications
>>bog NT down fast.
>
>I find the opposite to be true. I found NT multitasking much smoother
>than OS/2's with the appropriate memory configuration.
OS/2 has not been vigorously developed or developed for since IBM gave
up on it. That has been more than a year now. It is just another
casualty of the MS monopoly and of their anticompetitive practices.
Why don't you compare NT with Unix? Ohhhhh.....I see. :)
>>(3) It is not as fast as OS/2 as a file and print server.
>
>False. Even IBM's own tests indicated equal performance with dual
>CPU's.
Every lab benchmark I have seen from ZD says that NT trails both OS/2
and Unix in performance as file/print server. The most recent is only
a few months old.
>I wonder what MS tests would indicate...
No you don't. You know MS would lie like they always do.
>>(4) It doesn't get the same gain in performance moving up to a
>>Pentium Pro that OS/2 does.
>
>Prove it. OS/2 still has 16-bit code in it which the Pentium Pro
>chokes on.
>
You are completely out to lunch on this issue. OS/2 has 16-bit code
in it, yes, but Colorworks/2 showed a 128% increase in performance on
a Pentium Pro. No NT application showed more than 40-50% increase.
Several other OS/2 apps were well above that level.
Professional MS liars like Richard Shupak have used the percent of
16-bit code argument to try and mislead the public about the truth of
the Pentium Pro fiasco. But as any logical consideration of facts
will illustrate, the percent of 16-bit code in the OS has absolutely
nothing to do with degradation of performance on the Pro.
What it has to do with is the amount of 16-bit code being executed
while an application is running. With Win95, there is always 16-bit
code involved, so even when running a 32-bit app the very best it
can ever do is run at about the same speed as on a Pentium, often
even slower.
OS/2's 128% boost shows it is not running 16-bit code when it's not
needed. NT's 45% gain is consistent with its generally sluggish
performance in all areas. Better than Win95, but a long way from
128%, eh?
>>(5) NT is as acalable as a catfish. Even Linux's first shot at SMP
>>scales to 2 processors better than NT 4.0. It has taken this long,
>>believe it or not, to get NT to the point where it runs faster on 8
>>processors than it does on 2. Any Unix kicks its ass in this regard.
>
>False.
Saying false doesn't alter the facts. PC Week's results show that
Linux gets a bigger boost in going from 1 to 2 processors than NT.
Embarrassing for MS? Hell yes.
But not as embarrassing as the fact that NT only recently has begun
to run faster on 8 CPU's than it does on 2. That's not "scalable,"
that's pathetic.
>>(6) MS doesn't do communications well, never has. Is that the reason
>>for NT's socket-fatigue? For the 10 concurrent socket max? While
>>Linux and other free Unix products can handle hundreds and hundreds
>>of simultaneous connections without breathing hard?
>
>NT can handle more than 10 concurrent socket connections. I don't
>know where you heard this.
From Microsoft, of course. That's where everyone got it. They
claimed the reason they changed the license was because NT Workstation
was not designed to be able to handle more than 10 connections at
once.
Was Microsoft lying? Of course they were. That's why the sarcastic
diagnosis of "socket-fatigue" was born.
>>What NT has going for it, just like Win95, is a monopoly on the
>>desktop.
>
>Wrong.
Let's go slow so you don't misunderstand. Microsoft's monopoly on
the desktop is a given. It's been that way forever. There has never
been a viable alternative to DOS. The reason for Win95's success is
not because of its technical achievements or because of the myth of
MS's great marketing. It's because MS has a monopoly on the desktop
and has moved their customers from one locked-in Windows platform to
the next.
What NT has going for it, is that MS has a monopoly on the desktop.
They leverage that monopoly to extend their empire.
Would NT enjoy the same success it has to date if OS/2 had 50 percent
of the desktop market? Of course not.
Would NT enjoy the same success if OS/2 were not a casualty of the MS
monopoly and their anticompetitive practices? Hell no. As I said
originally, NT is slightly more stable, and may be better for some
things, but it certainly isn't all that when compared to OS/2, even
with the fact that OS/2 is no longer being vigorously developed.
Think about it and you won't miss the point.
>> It's just
>>not much. Novell kicks its ass all to hell as a NOS.
>I'd disagree with you here, except that the directory services are
>nice (almost essential).
I'll close with the NDS situation. My original rant/statement was
that Bill Gates is a lying coward, one who is afraid of competition.
The past 2 weeks show this to be the case yet again.
(1) MS cannot compete with Novell's NDS for NT. They won't be able
to until 1999, at the soonest, and then they will be 1.0 and
another year behind. Since they cannot compete, they engage
in anti-competitive behavior. That means behavior designed
to eliminate the competition rather than compete with it.
(2) To stop Novell's advance, MS announced 2 weeks ago that NT
customers who use Novell's NDS for NT would lose their technical
support from Microsoft. They put forth a number of lies to cover
their action.
Among the lies Microsoft posted publically on their web site was
the number of files (DLL's) Novell replaced and the consequences
of their doing so. According to MS, the new DLL's would screw up
the upgrade to NT 5.0 and cause the loss of C2 certification
None of this behavior, the lies or the attempt to stifle their
competition by spreading FUD and scaring their customers into
sitting tight until 1999 (2000? 2001? Nothing is as uncertain
as an MS operating release schedule) when NT 5.0 is supposed
to be out and is supposed to have a clone of NDS built in, is
new.
It is completely typical, illegal, and anti-competitive.
(3) Last week Microsoft not only backed from from the EU in their
ISP contracts which "fly in the face" of competition, they not
only backed off from the DOJ's contempt charges by agreeing to
unbundle IE 3.x and IE 4.0 from Win95 for their OEM's, they
backed off fromt their original position and statements about
customers using Novell's NDS.
They will provide technical support for their own customers.
Wow. How big of them.
They admit they were wrong about the number of DLL's replaced
and the consequences of replacing them.
They apologized for their "mistake." Said "mistake" had the
complete support of all MS executives up to and including Bill
Gates. Said "mistake" was online for a week on the MS web
site.
Novell, of course, has made hay out of Microsoft's attempt at customer
intimidation, anti-competitive behavior, and the litany of lies that
surrounded the whole sordid affair.
They still point out that Microsoft remains wrong about one of their
original points. NT Server could not lose C-2 security certification
as a result of using Novell's NDS. Because NT Server does not have
C-2 certification.
Another frigging lie from the prince of liars. From the chickenshit
geek who is terrified of competition and who will go to any length to
avoid it. Including screwing his own customers.
Um....that's you, Todd.
See ya,
Joe Barr
The Dweebspeak Primer
Jerry Coffey
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:08:15 -0500, Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm glad Bill Gates exists. I can live with his industry presence as
>> long as it continues to annoy the shit out of people like you.
>
>It's hard to think of anything positive to say about your kind of
>thinking, though it's not uncommon. MS supporters very commonly react
>more to the attitude of MS detractors than to actual technical issues,
>while at the same time painting the anti-MS forces as knee-jerk
>reactionaries.
>
Oh please. Do you really think people carrying around as much attitude
as Joe here are ever really interested in discussing technical issues,
especially with people they look down their noses at? Give me a break.
On the contrary, arrogance of Joe's proportions is almost always
exhibited by people who vastly overestimate their level of insight,
technical and otherwise - people who think they have the world way too
well figured out to keep an open mind about anything.
>
>I suppose it's not surprising; to actually support MS and
>their actions, on their own merits, is baffling and nothing short of
>immoral.
>
Oh my. Do you actually have your head far enough up your butt to have
mistaken your opinions for some sort of moral canon?
Aaron Kulkis
Jerry Coffey wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:08:15 -0500, Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I'm glad Bill Gates exists. I can live with his industry presence as
> >> long as it continues to annoy the shit out of people like you.
> >
> >It's hard to think of anything positive to say about your kind of
> >thinking, though it's not uncommon. MS supporters very commonly react
> >more to the attitude of MS detractors than to actual technical issues,
> >while at the same time painting the anti-MS forces as knee-jerk
> >reactionaries.
> >
>
> Oh please. Do you really think people carrying around as much attitude
> as Joe here are ever really interested in discussing technical issues,
> especially with people they look down their noses at? Give me a break.
>
I feel the same way, because he is nothing but a pestilence upon
the computing industry. Name ANY non-M$ OS that crashes the way
his do....
The only one that I've worked on that was so flaky was a beta version,
on a 30MHz, 16Mbyte machine, and even then, it took 75 user logins to
cause probs. Once fixed (about 6 months of kernal hacking), this
machine could handle 200+ logins, of people doing heavy stuff like
2-week jobs (grad students), and heavy edit/compile sessions
undergrads...
> On the contrary, arrogance of Joe's proportions is almost always
> exhibited by people who vastly overestimate their level of insight,
> technical and otherwise - people who think they have the world way too
> well figured out to keep an open mind about anything.
>
Tell you what, I have 17 years experience, and have worked on a dozen
OS's, and more platforms than I can remember, and have even WRITTEN
a multi-user, multi-tasking OS with inter-process (even inter-user)
communication...on a lowly 8-bit 6809, and *I* tell you that the
stuff is shit...the only reason I use it at all is "compatability"
with all the rest of the morons like yourself who I have to deal with.
> >
> >I suppose it's not surprising; to actually support MS and
> >their actions, on their own merits, is baffling and nothing short of
> >immoral.
> >
>
> Oh my. Do you actually have your head far enough up your butt to have
> mistaken your opinions for some sort of moral canon?
I don't know about him, but, there's only ONE M$ advocate who I know
who has any significant non-M$ experience (David Field)....
I haven't actually *MET* any....
I do know tons of *MS* advocates...but they're all clueless about
ANYTHING non-M$....so, I for one, see a pattern
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Administrator
Ford Motor Company
--------------------------------
I speak for me, not my employer.
--------------------------------
Joseph Sloan
Philip Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 02:20:54 GMT, todd_...@hp.com wrote:
> >We typically have hundreds of connections to our Lotus Notes servers
> >here (quad Pentium Pro machines), and these servers are *fast* running
> >NT. Over two thousand users are subscribed to the machine.
> >
> >NT isn't 'breathing hard'. Lotus themselves even document that NT
> >servers are some of the fastest Lotus Notes servers around, especially
> >on dual CPU architectures from Compaq and HP.
>
> "some of the fastest Lotus Notes servers".
>
> Gee, there's an important statement.
> How many alternatives are there? :-)
Actually, there are alternatives - but the fact is, windows "nt" is one of the
slowest and most fragile choices of notes server platform. Solaris on the same
hardware soundly trounces windows "nt" as a notes server, and is more stable
too!
Too bad there isn't a Linux port of notes server.
jjs
george marengo
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 03:44:12 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <aku...@flash.net>
wrote:
>Jerry Coffey wrote:
>> On the contrary, arrogance of Joe's proportions is almost always
>> exhibited by people who vastly overestimate their level of insight,
>> technical and otherwise - people who think they have the world way too
>> well figured out to keep an open mind about anything.
>Tell you what, I have 17 years experience, and have worked on a dozen
>OS's, and more platforms than I can remember, and have even WRITTEN
>a multi-user, multi-tasking OS with inter-process (even inter-user)
>communication...on a lowly 8-bit 6809, and *I* tell you that the
>stuff is shit...the only reason I use it at all is "compatability"
>with all the rest of the morons like yourself who I have to deal with.
Like he said.. people who overestimate their level of insight, technical
and otherwise and who think they have it all figured out. You just don't
get it. Most computer users simply don't care to have the "best"
available, and most users don't need it even if they wanted it. The
simple mouse trap isn't the best available, but it does its job
reasonably well. It's cheap, it's a known quantity, and there's no
compelling reason for most people to buy anything else.
Mats Olsson
In article <34c957aa...@news.prismnet.com>,
Joe Barr <pa...@pjprimer.com> wrote:
>They still point out that Microsoft remains wrong about one of their
>original points. NT Server could not lose C-2 security certification
>as a result of using Novell's NDS. Because NT Server does not have
>C-2 certification.
Hey, NT has C-2 certification! As long as it isn't connected to a
network, of course... eh... ah... ok, it makes sense that they got
C2 certification for a stand-alone NT workstation - getting it for
a stand-alone NT server would be pretty laughable; a server serving
itself sounds like... well, not very interresting.
The reason for NT having C2 certification is pretty much the same
reason it has a Posix1.0 compatibility extension - marketing. Both follow
the letter and not the spirit, so they are both useless in real life.
/Mats
James Arendt
In this case, the mouse trap is the OS.. I have a hard time convincing
myself that Windows does its job "reasonably well". I have friends who
fit the description of "simply don't care to have the best" and "don't
need it even if they wanted it", but they all bitch to me asking why
does Windows crash and why can't I do this or that. Even though they
fit the description you have so pointed out, they do care about
reliability and features. Their opinion is that Windows does not do
its job "reasonably well". They would switch to OS/2, Linux, or
something else if they could have the apps they want. This spoken by
people who many who would term "barely computer literate" == "Hey, I
can get the machine on and open Word."
*shrugs*
Perhaps I just have friends who have learned to expect more (aka
reliability), even if they don't know exactly what they need.
James
Chris
I wish you were getting more support for your tirade. Pesronally, I loved
it.
- Chris
Chris
> Oh please. Do you really think people carrying around as much attitude
> as Joe here are ever really interested in discussing technical issues,
> especially with people they look down their noses at? Give me a break.
I think it's pretty clear that Joe's repsonding to actual things that MS
has actually done. He certainly did a fine job providing examples and
backing up his statements. His motivation is obviously genuine.When you say
'I can live with his industry presence aslong as it continues to annoy the
shit out of people like you', what exactly is motivating YOU?
> On the contrary, arrogance of Joe's proportions is almost always
> exhibited by people who vastly overestimate their level of insight,
> technical and otherwise - people who think they have the world way too
> well figured out to keep an open mind about anything.
An interesting theory. But you are being as arrogant as Joe, with much less
to back it up.
> Oh my. Do you actually have your head far enough up your butt to have
> mistaken your opinions for some sort of moral canon?
I see. I'm not sure it's Joe who's out of line there. Now to actually
address your point - let me jsut say that I think moral relativism, like
nihlism, is a nice thing for college kids to mess around with, but it has
little to do with real life. So I'm comfortable saying Gates is Bad,
period. If you want to rebut that, good luck.
Chris
tims wrote:
> <snipped>
> Actually, Gates is doing a damn good job of making a lot of money. The
> real fault lies in people too lazy/confused stupid to worry about what's
> going on. Oh, hang on a sec, sounds like me. Down with the evil Bill
> Gates!
You're right about blaming the people (except yourself), but just because
the Germans didn't stop Hitler doesn't mean that Hitler wasn't bad.
(If you're going to respond to this and complain about me comparing Hitler
to Bill Gates, please don't respond to the group).
Chris
Mike Hamrick wrote:
> Joe Barr (pa...@pjprimer.com) wrote:
>
> > Gates, of course, champions business practices which have a single,
> > simple goal: the complete elimination of competition. Netscape and
> > Novell are only the latest two victims. For Gates to claim that
> > Microsoft favors competition is like Idi Amin claiming to be for human
> > rights, or for the paparazzi to say they respect the right to privacy,
> > or for a cocaine whore to say she is doing it for pleasure.
>
> What!? She's NOT doing it for pleasure!? No more coke for her!
>
> mikeh
Please move this thread to alt.cokewhore.advocacy
Thank you,
Chris
Chris
Just wanted to say that *I* don't think that worrying about Gates putting back
doors etc. into financial software is X-Files hysteria. I don't know how likely it
is, but when the most dishonest businessman in recent memory moves to completely
control the most crucial (to consumers) information systems in the country, you'd
be crazy NOT to worry. I'm glad you brought this up - I never would have thought
about it otherwise.
Dean Z. Douthat
Chris (ch...@surewould.com) wrote:
<snip>
: I see. I'm not sure it's Joe who's out of line there. Now to actually
: address your point - let me jsut say that I think moral relativism, like
: nihlism, is a nice thing for college kids to mess around with, but it has
: little to do with real life. So I'm comfortable saying Gates is Bad,
: period. If you want to rebut that, good luck.
In Billy G's response to the Federal Judge's order and Billy C's
response to his latest sexual crisis, we see examples of logical
endpoints for moral relativism.
--
Names: Dean Z. Douthat de...@cyberzone-inc.com
Snail: PO Box 7571 Ann Arbor MI 48107-7571 USA
Phone: (734)747-9170 (voice) (734)747-8478 (fax)
george marengo
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:21:43 -0600, James Arendt
<are...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>its job "reasonably well". They would switch to OS/2, Linux, or
>something else if they could have the apps they want. This spoken by
>people who many who would term "barely computer literate" == "Hey, I
>can get the machine on and open Word."
Then it's pretty clear that there is no compelling reason to switch,
regardless of their complaints. The OS does its job well enough,
otherwise they would have switched. For some people, it certainly
doesn't and that is the reason why another alternative is used.
Jerry Coffey
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:51:50 -0500, Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
>>
>> Oh please. Do you really think people carrying around as much attitude
>> as Joe here are ever really interested in discussing technical issues,
>> especially with people they look down their noses at? Give me a break.
>
>I think it's pretty clear that Joe's repsonding to actual things that MS
>has actually done. He certainly did a fine job providing examples and
>backing up his statements. His motivation is obviously genuine.
>
For God's sake, man. Joe's so called "examples" consist of nothing
more than simple-minded, biased interpretations of technical details
reported sketchily (and often incompetently) by the industry press.
I'll just give you one example. Joe goes on and on about the so-called
"fiasco" concerning the differences between NT Workstation and NT
Server. According to Joe, the binary kernel images of the two products
are identical, so MS should be berated for selling them as two
different products.
Huh?! Apparently Joe isn't too concerned about the fact that this is
standard software industry practice. A commercial UNIX executable
often contains enough code for an entire product family, and uses a
software license manager to artificially block out functionality the
customer didn't pay for. Add one line to the license manager's
configuration file and an entire product you didn't pay for suddenly
becomes available with no further software installation. So what?
Joe also doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that the size of the
switch - in this case a couple of registry entries - bears no relation
to the amount of functionality enabled or disabled when that switch is
thrown. In other words, changing that registry key may very well flip
between two totally different kernels that just happen to be packaged
together in a single file (no, I don't believe that's the case, but
there are hundreds of subtle tuning differences between the
Workstation and Server kernels).
And finally, Joe doesn't seem to understand that when you buy NT or
any other software product, you aren't buying a stream of bits to do
with as you please - you're buying the right to use the software in
ways laid out in the license agreement. There are many cases where a
vendor sells exactly the same set of software files at outrageously
different prices, the products differing only in the terms of their
licenses. As an example, consider a five-user vs. unlimited-user copy
of Netware or SCO Open Desktop - the files are identical but the
prices are *VERY* different. So even if the NT kernel operated
identically in Workstation and Server "modes", the fact that the
products are licensed differently justifies the fact that they're
marketed and priced differently. In reality, not only does the kernel
operate differently, but NT Server includes a boatload of other
software NT Workstation leaves out.
This is just one example, but is typical of the rest. Joe casts such a
biased and superficial glance at the technical issues that his
inevitably skewed analysis is a joke, pure and simple.
>
>When you say
>'I can live with his industry presence aslong as it continues to annoy the
>shit out of people like you', what exactly is motivating YOU?
What's motivating me?! I thought it was obvious. The contempt I hold
for arrogant people.
>>
>> On the contrary, arrogance of Joe's proportions is almost always
>> exhibited by people who vastly overestimate their level of insight,
>> technical and otherwise - people who think they have the world way too
>> well figured out to keep an open mind about anything.
>
>An interesting theory. But you are being as arrogant as Joe, with much less
>to back it up.
>
The only opinion I presented in my original response to Joe is that
he's arrogant. His articles back that up quite nicely.
>>
>> Oh my. Do you actually have your head far enough up your butt to have
>> mistaken your opinions for some sort of moral canon?
>
>I see. I'm not sure it's Joe who's out of line there. Now to actually
>address your point - let me jsut say that I think moral relativism, like
>nihlism, is a nice thing for college kids to mess around with, but it has
>little to do with real life.
>
Oh great! Then I suppose you can tell me where I can get a copy of the
Real Life(tm) Moral Code - you know, the one that clearly establishes
support of Microsoft's actions as "immoral". Please reply with a URL
or ISBN number. I just can't wait to read it!
>
>So I'm comfortable saying Gates is Bad, period. If you want to rebut
>that, good luck.
>
Oh, this is rich! "Rebut that"?! Buddy, I don't give a rat's ass what
your opinion of Bill Gates is! Why should I? I only hope you can
remember that an opinion is all it is.
Joseph T. Adams
Jerry Coffey (drum@mediaone*SPAM*THIS*.net) wrote:
:
: Oh great! Then I suppose you can tell me where I can get a copy of the
: Real Life(tm) Moral Code - you know, the one that clearly establishes
: support of Microsoft's actions as "immoral". Please reply with a URL
: or ISBN number. I just can't wait to read it!
The Ten Commandments make an excellent start. You know, "thou shalt
not steal," "thou shalt not bear false witness," "thou shalt not
covet"?
URL is (sorry, it extends to multiple lines, but it's a single URL -
type it all as one word without whitespace):
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=KJV
&passage=Deuteronomy+5&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep
Laugh if you want but I find that my life and my business work much,
much better when I take these commandments seriously.
It's OK to make money, but's not OK to make it by lying, cheating, and
stealing. And it's not OK to approve of and condone actions that you
know to be wrong.
Joe
Joe Barr
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 06:06:50 GMT, drum@mediaone*SPAM*THIS*.net (Jerry
Coffey) wrote:
>For God's sake, man. Joe's so called "examples" consist of nothing
>more than simple-minded, biased interpretations of technical details
>reported sketchily (and often incompetently) by the industry press.
Jerry, the "fiasco" you try so hard to minimize will be rising to the
top in several state/federal/international jurisdictions now that
the smoke is starting to clear in the browser battle. Gates and
company have backed off from illegally tying browser to OS, but
that is not the end of the legal action against them.
You are well versed in the latest Redmonian defense of their actions,
but it is still bullshit whether it comes from your mouth or from
Gates' own.
As you know, Microsoft originally claimed that NTW was a completely
different product and wasn't robust enough (thus the birth or my
sarcasticly named malady "socket-fatigue") to handle 10 concurrent
connections. After Andrew Schulman and a number of others, including
Eamonn Sullivan of PC Week, exposed that huge putrid lie for what it
was, MS fell into their secondary and tertiary lines of defense.
That would be the line you are giving voice to now, Jerry.
And what the current defense amounts to is MS ripping restrictive
licensing terms out of NOS products and slapping them into desktop
operating system licenses.
It is perfectly valid to condition the sale of an NOS based on the
number of clients to be served. Microsoft's position is that a web
server is the same thing as an NOS. There are some people, evidently
you are one of them, Jerry, who are stupid enough to believe that.
But there are others who see Microsoft's change in licensing as not
being connected to anything other than their desire to steal from
their customers and their competitors the natural hosting platform
for competitor's web servers. They see it as prima facie evidence of
illegal restraint of trade. That is why the issue won't dissappear in
spite of whatever bullshit you and MS come up with to try and hide it
with.
The change in license is not related to ANY technological issue at
all. It is simply another example, and this is how I used it, of the
cowardly nature of Bill Gates and his firm. They are terrified of
competition so they do everything in their power to eliminate it.
By the way, you need to visit Schulman's page and learn the facts, you
look pretty stupid dressed in nothing but lies from Redmond.
Joe Barr
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 06:06:50 GMT, drum@mediaone*SPAM*THIS*.net (Jerry
Coffey) wrote:
>
>I'll just give you one example. Joe goes on and on about the so-called
>"fiasco" concerning the differences between NT Workstation and NT
>Server. According to Joe, the binary kernel images of the two products
>are identical, so MS should be berated for selling them as two
>different products.
You are uptodate on the latest line from Redmond, but it is still
bullshit whether it comes out of your mouth or Gates'.
There is no corellation between selling licenses for a NOS based on
the number of clients to be served and selling a single-user desktop
operating system which may or may not be used as a web server.
The first round of lies from Microsoft, that NTW was a different
product and was not robust enough to handle as many connections as,
oh, Win95, Linux, OS/2, whatever, were exposed and they took up a
secondary line of defense. The lie du jour was to grab some valid
limiting clauses from NOS licenses and slap them down on top of NTW.
No matter how many slimey lying asskissing geeks who come around and
try and bedazzle the common folk, it is obvious even to lawyers and
judges and businessmen and competitors and journalists and most
everyone with a three digit IQ that MS is simply doing what they love
to do: stifle competition.
The competition in this case was from Netscape and O'Reilly. Stealing
their "natural" hosting platform from the public and their competitors
and forcing them to pay hundreds more for an equivalent OS that
happens to include a "free" webserver from MS is prima facie evidence
of restraint of trade.
This issue will be rising to the top in a number of
state/federal/international jurisdictions as soon as the smoke clears
from MS backing off from their illegal tying of browser and OS.
So do your best to discount it now, Jerry. It will only make you look
even more absurd in the future. And go visit Andrew Shulman's web
site and learn the facts. You look pretty stupid dressed only in MS
lies.
>Oh great! Then I suppose you can tell me where I can get a copy of the
>Real Life(tm) Moral Code - you know, the one that clearly establishes
>support of Microsoft's actions as "immoral". Please reply with a URL
>or ISBN number. I just can't wait to read it!
>
>>
>>So I'm comfortable saying Gates is Bad, period. If you want to rebut
>>that, good luck.
>>
>
>Oh, this is rich! "Rebut that"?! Buddy, I don't give a rat's ass what
>your opinion of Bill Gates is! Why should I? I only hope you can
>remember that an opinion is all it is.
*=========================================================*
JEDI
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 03:26:38 GMT, george marengo <gmar...@home.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:21:43 -0600, James Arendt
><are...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>its job "reasonably well". They would switch to OS/2, Linux, or
>>something else if they could have the apps they want. This spoken by
>>people who many who would term "barely computer literate" == "Hey, I
>>can get the machine on and open Word."
>
>Then it's pretty clear that there is no compelling reason to switch,
>regardless of their complaints. The OS does its job well enough,
>otherwise they would have switched. For some people, it certainly
However, they need something to switch to. If the
mainstream computing press is infatuated with dos
& windows it becomes ever more unlikely that they
will be aware of other options.
That dos/windows pervasiveness also tends to
determine the general public's notion of
'good enough' as they've never sufficiently
experienced anything different.
Larry Brasfield
Todd Kepus wrote in message <34cc09c4....@news.corp.hp.com>...
[huge snip of oft-repeated exchange]
>MS didn't force me to use anything.
>
>I chose to use NT because I really believe that it is far better than
>OS/2 and Linux for my uses.
>
>Until IBM or some other company or person designs something better,
>I'll stick with NT, and not because it's from MS, but because *I* like
>it, and *I* choose to use it.
I can predict the next step, here. I speak for all the
self-defined original thinkers of the cyber world:
You use it only because (1) you are a lemming; (2) you
have been suckered by superior or deceptive marketing;
or (3) you were forced to use it because you wanted to
run certain applications that were heinously targeted
only at Windows for monopolistic purposes.
-- Larry Brasfield
(a satisfied user of Windows NT)
The aforementioned views are mine alone.
(Convert under to dot for e-mail reply.)
Joel Klecker
['Newsgroups:' stripped to comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy and
comp.unix.advocacy]
In article <6acv38$1vk$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se>, ma...@dtek.chalmers.se
(Mats Olsson) wrote:
> Hey, NT has C-2 certification! As long as it isn't connected to a
> network, of course... eh... ah... ok, it makes sense that they got
> C2 certification for a stand-alone NT workstation - getting it for
> a stand-alone NT server would be pretty laughable; a server serving
> itself sounds like... well, not very interresting.
Also note that the *mumble* security certifications are granted to
*systems*, not OSes (e.g. NT 3.5.1 on a specific brand of PC (Some
486-based machine, which of course is no longer made, IIRC), with a
specific hardware and software configuration), and the process takes
years, which is why NT 3.5.1 is the latest certified OS for a C2-secure
(which basically only means that password authentication and some form of
"file permissions" are used, IIRC (though that is likely a gross
oversimplification)) NT system.
--
Joel "Espy" Klecker............<mailto:j...@espy.org>
Web............................<http://www.espy.org/>
Debian GNU/Linux Developer.....<ftp://ftp.espy.org/pub>
Bernd Paysan
Dean Z. Douthat wrote:
> In Billy G's response to the Federal Judge's order and Billy C's
> response to his latest sexual crisis, we see examples of logical
> endpoints for moral relativism.
Well, this witch hunting case "Billy C." isn't something you'd call
"moral relativism". Even a president has the right for a private life,
and sexual affairs are part of private life, and definitely not a thing
of a public hearing. The fact that B.C. still has a functional c*ck
doesn't mean he's immorale; the fact that the american society cares
more about a supposed bed story of their president than of anything else
shows how bigot and bimoral this society is. After all, he's not elected
as pope, although the pope has two morals, too (human rights, rigth to
freely believe - good for others, bad for his followers: priests can't
marry, females can't become priests, and the archives of inquisition
opened just recently - as an example about what's definitly the contrary
to the right to freely believe).
--
Bernd Paysan
"Late answers are wrong answers!"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
Bernd Paysan
Joseph T. Adams wrote:
> The Ten Commandments make an excellent start. You know, "thou shalt
> not steal," "thou shalt not bear false witness," "thou shalt not
> covet"?
The one foundation of natural law does it, too: "You should not do to
others what you don't want them to do to you". Reference: Confuzius,
Aphorisms. By common sense, the last seven of the Ten Commandments are
covered (and a hell lot more), while the first three aren't.
Al Aab
son of a lawyer
--
=-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
al aab, seders moderator sed u soon
it is not zat we do not see the s o l u t i o n
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
r.e.b...@usa.net
In article <34c6b...@news.pacifier.com>,
"Soggy" <so...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> Held a lot of jobs have you...I wonder why<G>?
Actually, I was a consultant and kept getting better and better offers 8-)
Most of my employers have made at least one million dollars per month
based on acting on my reccomendations. One had increased there net
by over $1 million/day.
Just because something appears to be free does not mean that it has
no value. Vincent Van Gogh sold one painting for $50. Today, his
paintings set world records at auctions.
> MS has never spent anywhere
> close to your 12 bil total....WIN95 rollout did take around $100 mil though.
MS had a total advertizing budget of over $8 billion in the period from
1991 (the announcement of NT) to 1996 (the release of Windows 95).
Yes, much of that was Co-Op, or ads for Office, Word, and all of the
other Microsoft Products. The key point is that every publisher was
very aware that Microsoft did NOT want positive coverage of UNIX,
TCP/IP, or Linux (available in 1992).
> I would think any publication would be concerned about the source of the
> advertising dollar and I would think any advertiser would tend to run ads in
> friendly places.... would anyone expect anything else?
No. But when one uses the information provided in trade journals heavily
funded by a single customer (Microsoft), it is not necessarily a reliable
source of accurate information. When AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were
placing full page ads, they claimed that the Internet was unreliable,
unsecure, and would incapable of supporting more than a million users.
Word got out to publication that Weren't dependent on Microsoft that the
technology used on the internet was not only reliable, but had been
designed by the DOD to guarantee "last strike" capability in the
aftermath of a nuclear haulocaust.
> >When Microsoft went into direct competition with local newspapers and
> >websites for classified advertising money, the local newspapers balked,
> >as did their parent companies. Gannet, Scripts-Howard, McGraw-Hill,
> >and Time-Life were all deeply gouged by that tactic.
> You expect them to embrace "more" competition...duh!!!! .........how is this
> gouging?
Microsoft had entered into several "joint ventures" in which almost a
hundred publishers worked closely with Microsoft. Microsoft learned as
much as they could about the industry, raided key talent, and identified
the most profitable portion of the business and went right for the
juggular.
You can guess what Microsoft will do when it gets into the financial
services industry. If Microsoft has it's way, 20% of your income will
end up in Microsoft's pocket once it can identify the most vulnerable
and profitable venues.
> >We are already seeng glowing endorsements of Red Hat Linux 5.0 and
> >unfavorable press coverage of Microsoft. Microsoft's attempt to resist
> >government intervention fall on deaf ears. Judge Jackson is likely to do
> >to Microsoft what Judge Greene did to AT&T.
> >Rex Ballard
>
> Your efforts at predicting the future are just about as valid as your other
> fiction.... why you don't feel there's room in the market for MS and Linux is
> beyond common sense...afraid to let the user choose? Soggy
I have been saying all along that Linux will probably only capture 40% to
60% of what is currently the "Microsoft" market. Bill Gates on the other
hand has already set is sites on blowing away Sun and then other UNIX
vendors and claim his "rightful share" of the server market (95% with the
remainder being legacy systems and "crackpots").
Unfortunately, Microsoft only likes competition when it knows it will win
a lion's share of a market it does not currently have. It does not like
anyone competing in it's back yard. This is especially true of Linux
and Intel based UNIX.
Rex Ballard
http://www.access.digex.net/~rballard
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Todd Kepus
On 23 Jan 1998 03:05:02 GMT, mich...@demon.net (Mike Bristow) wrote:
>[newsgroups trimmed; I don't think comp.lang.java.advocacy wants this]
>
>In article <34c6f733....@news.corp.hp.com>,
> todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus) writes:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:14:38 GMT, pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
>>
>>> (5) NT is as acalable as a catfish. Even Linux's first shot at SMP
>>> scales to 2 processors better than NT 4.0. It has taken this long,
>>> believe it or not, to get NT to the point where it runs faster on 8
>>> processors than it does on 2. Any Unix kicks its ass in this
>>> regard.
>>
>> False.
>
>True.
Boy, with your comments on backing this up, I really believe you!
Any reasons???
>
>> NT with dual CPU's exhibited up to an 80% performance gain than with
>> just one CPU running Adobe Photoshop. PCWeek conducted the tests.
>
>Scalable doesn NOT mean `you can have 2 CPU's'. It means `you can
>have many CPU's' (in this context). Did you not see where Joe said
>``...it runs faster on 8 processors...''. 8 is not 2.
Ok, fair enough. I don't have experience with NT over 4 processors.
However, with 4 processors, you can still get very good gain if you
have well coded, multithreaded apps.
8 CPU's? I don't know. UNIX can have that category for now.
>
>> An 80% performance gain is pretty acceptable for adding another
>> processor. I don't think you can get to the theoretical limit of 100%
>> gain. If UNIX can do this, then I'd agree that UNIX is a lot better
>> at scaling.
>
>80% is not acceptable for going from 1 processor to 8. Which is what
>Joe said, and you have not responded to.
Sorry, the 80% figure is from going from 1 to 2. Not 1 to 8.
>
>>>(6) MS doesn't do communications well, never has. Is that the reason
>>>for NT's socket-fatigue? For the 10 concurrent socket max? While
>>>Linux and other free Unix products can handle hundreds and hundreds
>>>of simultaneous connections without breathing hard?
>>
>> NT can handle more than 10 concurrent socket connections. I don't
>> know where you heard this.
>
>I understand that NTs can, NTw can't.
NTW sure can as well. We do a lot of testing under NTW before moving
to NTS for production.
Besides the fact that NTW is almost identical in performance to NTS,
NTW can accept as many connections as NTS as well.
-Todd
>
>
>--
>Mike Bristow mich...@demon.net
>NOC FL Administrator Demon Internet Ltd
>Sales: +44 (0)181-371 1234 Support: +44 (0)181-371 1010
Todd Kepus - Japan Hewlett Packard - todd_...@hp.com
--------------------------------------------------------
*The standard disclaimers et. al. (and stuff) apply.
"I am not an HP spokesperson, and any opinions presented
here are mostly likely _not_ those of HP's"
--------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kepus
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 03:48:16 GMT, pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 02:20:54 GMT, todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>(1) If you run a DOS app, you might as well go to lunch.
>>
>>Compared to OS/2 that lets DOS apps. have direct hardware access that
>>may crash OS/2, you are right.
>
>NT is *slightly* more robust, that's all. There is no huge delta
>between and NT and OS/2 stability like there is between Win95 and
>either OS/2 or NT. Check Schulman's home page for the stats.
In my personal experience using both OS/2 and NT, I find NT to be far
more robust.
What do I mean by robust?
I mean that I don't have to reboot because of a crash, a hung SIQ, a
process I can't kill, etc.
I have had those problems many times with PM 32-bit applications under
OS/2.
>
>In any event, you are avoiding responding to my point. NT sucks at
>running DOS applicattions. It sucks at running DOS applications no
>matter what OS/2 does with them.
Fine. NT sucks at running DOS applications.
>
>>>(2) It sucks at multitasking. MS has finally gotten to the point of
>>>being able to do multithreading fairly well, but multiple applications
>>>bog NT down fast.
>>
>>I find the opposite to be true. I found NT multitasking much smoother
>>than OS/2's with the appropriate memory configuration.
>
>OS/2 has not been vigorously developed or developed for since IBM gave
>up on it. That has been more than a year now. It is just another
>casualty of the MS monopoly and of their anticompetitive practices.
No. IBM gave up on OS/2, not MS.
Remember, MS created NT 3.1 which pretty much sucked more than OS/2
did.
But, what did MS do? Give up? No, they came back with NT 3.5, a
*huge* improvement over NT 3.1.
>
>Why don't you compare NT with Unix? Ohhhhh.....I see. :)
Why should I? I thought we were talking about NT and OS/2.
NT vs. UNIX is a lot different that NT vs. OS/2. There are a lot of
points that would be different.
I like UNIX a lot. But, I think many people don't realize that NT is
a good OS that is starting to replace jobs that UNIX would have once
done.
In other words, NT is slowly making inroads to jobs that were once set
aside for UNIX.
>
>
>>>(3) It is not as fast as OS/2 as a file and print server.
>>
>>False. Even IBM's own tests indicated equal performance with dual
>>CPU's.
>
>Every lab benchmark I have seen from ZD says that NT trails both OS/2
>and Unix in performance as file/print server. The most recent is only
>a few months old.
And the most recent one indicated that NT and OS/2 were dead on for
file and print services.
And as for an application server, NT reigns supreme. I haven't seen
one test with Novell or OS/2 that beat NT in application services.
>
>>I wonder what MS tests would indicate...
>
>No you don't. You know MS would lie like they always do.
Yah right. So MS lies and everybody else is an angle. Yah right.
>
>>>(4) It doesn't get the same gain in performance moving up to a
>>>Pentium Pro that OS/2 does.
>>
>>Prove it. OS/2 still has 16-bit code in it which the Pentium Pro
>>chokes on.
>>
>
>You are completely out to lunch on this issue. OS/2 has 16-bit code
>in it, yes, but Colorworks/2 showed a 128% increase in performance on
>a Pentium Pro.
Please qualify that statement and provide proof.
Colorworks/2 showed a 128% increase from what to what?
> No NT application showed more than 40-50% increase.
Again, where is the proof?
>Several other OS/2 apps were well above that level.
Evidence?
>
>Professional MS liars like Richard Shupak have used the percent of
>16-bit code argument to try and mislead the public about the truth of
>the Pentium Pro fiasco. But as any logical consideration of facts
>will illustrate, the percent of 16-bit code in the OS has absolutely
>nothing to do with degradation of performance on the Pro.
All I'm saying is that logically, OS/2 isn't going to get any more
benefit from a Pro than NT would, and in fact, due to OS/2's inclusion
of 16-bit code, will probably not improve as much as NT, with 100%
32-bit code.
>
>What it has to do with is the amount of 16-bit code being executed
>while an application is running. With Win95, there is always 16-bit
>code involved, so even when running a 32-bit app the very best it
>can ever do is run at about the same speed as on a Pentium, often
>even slower.
>
>OS/2's 128% boost shows it is not running 16-bit code when it's not
>needed.
So again, a 128% boost from what? And where is that story??
> NT's 45% gain is consistent with its generally sluggish
>performance in all areas.
Proof?
I'm going to pin you to this point, because all of my personal
experience and the things I've read indicates that you are wrong on
this point.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to provide a
source from where you got that information :-)
> Better than Win95, but a long way from
>128%, eh?
>
>
>>>(5) NT is as acalable as a catfish. Even Linux's first shot at SMP
>>>scales to 2 processors better than NT 4.0. It has taken this long,
>>>believe it or not, to get NT to the point where it runs faster on 8
>>>processors than it does on 2. Any Unix kicks its ass in this regard.
>>
>>False.
>
>Saying false doesn't alter the facts. PC Week's results show that
>Linux gets a bigger boost in going from 1 to 2 processors than NT.
>Embarrassing for MS? Hell yes.
Were these running the *same* applications?
In any case, the application and the way it was coded really makes the
difference. If the application is multithreaded and well coded, the
application will get a lot bigger boost that if it were poorly coded
and/or not multithreaded.
The same goes with any OS.
I'd venture that if those tests were accurate, that Linux and NT were
tested using different applications.
>
>But not as embarrassing as the fact that NT only recently has begun
>to run faster on 8 CPU's than it does on 2. That's not "scalable,"
>that's pathetic.
Well, considering that Lotus themselves tested a HP server running
Lotus Notes on a 4 CPU machine that outdid the same machine with 2
processors, I'd say your claim is incorrect.
You can check the benchmarks on the Lotus web site concerning Notes
server performance for a better idea.
>
>>>(6) MS doesn't do communications well, never has. Is that the reason
>>>for NT's socket-fatigue? For the 10 concurrent socket max? While
>>>Linux and other free Unix products can handle hundreds and hundreds
>>>of simultaneous connections without breathing hard?
>>
>>NT can handle more than 10 concurrent socket connections. I don't
>>know where you heard this.
>
>From Microsoft, of course. That's where everyone got it. They
>claimed the reason they changed the license was because NT Workstation
>was not designed to be able to handle more than 10 connections at
>once.
The way NTW is set up, it isn't tuned to be a server. There is the
difference of the dynamic cache, and the timeslices given to
foreground/background processes.
They are different.
>
>Was Microsoft lying? Of course they were. That's why the sarcastic
>diagnosis of "socket-fatigue" was born.
You seem to claim MS is always lying. I disagree. And you are
inconsistent.
I doubt that everybody in the industry is altruistic, while MS is the
big bad guy.
>
>>>What NT has going for it, just like Win95, is a monopoly on the
>>>desktop.
>>
>>Wrong.
>
>Let's go slow so you don't misunderstand.
Gee, thanks :-)
> Microsoft's monopoly on
>the desktop is a given.
So, I guess I don't have a choice between NT, 95, OS/2, SCO UNIX,
Linux, <insert your favorite PC OS here>
> It's been that way forever.
Glad you agree. :-)
> There has never
>been a viable alternative to DOS.
Dr. DOS was pretty good for a while.
> The reason for Win95's success is
>not because of its technical achievements or because of the myth of
>MS's great marketing. It's because MS has a monopoly on the desktop
>and has moved their customers from one locked-in Windows platform to
>the next.
No, the reason is MS got a start with Windows 3.1, and everybody coded
for that platform.
The only 'upgrade' platform that could run those apps. well *and* give
a good base for the future (Win32) was Windows 95.
>
>What NT has going for it, is that MS has a monopoly on the desktop.
No. MS continued to improve NT until people took notice.
If you remeber, NT 3.1 had very few users. That is because the
*product* was not very good.
When NT 3.5 debuted, people started to notice. When 4.0 was released,
the general IT community took notice.
>They leverage that monopoly to extend their empire.
I disagree.
>
>Would NT enjoy the same success it has to date if OS/2 had 50 percent
>of the desktop market? Of course not.
If OS/2 was that good to get 50% of the market, it would have been
better than NT, and hence, you would be correct.
OS/2 isn't popular because it is hard to install, not very robust, not
very user friendly, not very good looking (yes, this counts too), and
etc.
Note that the above statement does not necessarily matter for us
'hackers', but it is important if you just want to run software to get
your work done.
>
>Would NT enjoy the same success if OS/2 were not a casualty of the MS
>monopoly and their anticompetitive practices? Hell no.
OS/2 is a casualty of itself.
Many things that would have made OS/2 better never got incorporated.
Instead, MS did them a few better, and now NT is everywhere.
Not a casualty of MS's claimed monopoly, but rather, IBM's poor record
of improving/marketing/supporting OS/2.
> As I said
>originally, NT is slightly more stable, and may be better for some
>things, but it certainly isn't all that when compared to OS/2, even
>with the fact that OS/2 is no longer being vigorously developed.
So you do agree that NT is slightly more stable, and is probably
better for some things.
And this is from an anti-MS advocate.
>
>Think about it and you won't miss the point.
I just did. :-) Thank you.
>>> It's just
>>>not much. Novell kicks its ass all to hell as a NOS.
>
>>I'd disagree with you here, except that the directory services are
>>nice (almost essential).
>
>I'll close with the NDS situation. My original rant/statement was
>that Bill Gates is a lying coward, one who is afraid of competition.
>The past 2 weeks show this to be the case yet again.
>
>(1) MS cannot compete with Novell's NDS for NT. They won't be able
> to until 1999, at the soonest, and then they will be 1.0 and
> another year behind. Since they cannot compete, they engage
> in anti-competitive behavior. That means behavior designed
> to eliminate the competition rather than compete with it.
>
>(2) To stop Novell's advance, MS announced 2 weeks ago that NT
> customers who use Novell's NDS for NT would lose their technical
> support from Microsoft. They put forth a number of lies to cover
> their action.
>
> Among the lies Microsoft posted publically on their web site was
> the number of files (DLL's) Novell replaced and the consequences
> of their doing so. According to MS, the new DLL's would screw up
> the upgrade to NT 5.0 and cause the loss of C2 certification
>
> None of this behavior, the lies or the attempt to stifle their
> competition by spreading FUD and scaring their customers into
> sitting tight until 1999 (2000? 2001? Nothing is as uncertain
> as an MS operating release schedule) when NT 5.0 is supposed
> to be out and is supposed to have a clone of NDS built in, is
> new.
>
> It is completely typical, illegal, and anti-competitive.
>
>(3) Last week Microsoft not only backed from from the EU in their
> ISP contracts which "fly in the face" of competition, they not
> only backed off from the DOJ's contempt charges by agreeing to
> unbundle IE 3.x and IE 4.0 from Win95 for their OEM's, they
> backed off fromt their original position and statements about
> customers using Novell's NDS.
>
> They will provide technical support for their own customers.
> Wow. How big of them.
>
> They admit they were wrong about the number of DLL's replaced
> and the consequences of replacing them.
>
> They apologized for their "mistake." Said "mistake" had the
> complete support of all MS executives up to and including Bill
> Gates. Said "mistake" was online for a week on the MS web
> site.
>
>Novell, of course, has made hay out of Microsoft's attempt at customer
>intimidation, anti-competitive behavior, and the litany of lies that
>surrounded the whole sordid affair.
>
>They still point out that Microsoft remains wrong about one of their
>original points. NT Server could not lose C-2 security certification
>as a result of using Novell's NDS. Because NT Server does not have
>C-2 certification.
>
>Another frigging lie from the prince of liars. From the chickenshit
>geek who is terrified of competition and who will go to any length to
>avoid it. Including screwing his own customers.
>
>Um....that's you, Todd.
Well, Joe, I think you have me wrong.
I am not scared of competition. We do it everyday. If I were head of
any company, I would make sure I try everyday to stomp out the
competition. That is business.
Would I be unethical about it? Probably not. I don't think MS has
done anything too terribly unethical.
I think there are a lot of hackers who love Linux and OS/2 because you
can 'tweak' many things (ie. hard for the average user), and don't
want to see them go away.
Windows provides a way for the average people to get their work done,
and have some fun as well.
I like hacking around as well, and for that reason alone I used OS/2
for a year or two.
MS didn't force me to use anything.
I chose to use NT because I really believe that it is far better than
OS/2 and Linux for my uses.
Until IBM or some other company or person designs something better,
I'll stick with NT, and not because it's from MS, but because *I* like
it, and *I* choose to use it.
-Todd
>
>
>See ya,
>Joe Barr
>The Dweebspeak Primer
>
>
>*=========================================================*
>| The Dweebspeak Primer www.pjprimer.com |
>*=========================================================*
Todd Kepus - Japan Hewlett Packard - todd_...@hp.com
Todd Kepus
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:03:39 -0500, Tim Campbell
<tcam...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Todd Kepus wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:14:38 GMT, pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
>[speaking about NT}
>> >(1) If you run a DOS app, you might as well go to lunch.
>>
>> Compared to OS/2 that lets DOS apps. have direct hardware access that
>> may crash OS/2, you are right.
>
>This is configurable in OS/2. It is completely possible to disallow
>direct access to hardware.
But then, you 'might as well go to lunch'.
>
>> >(5) NT is as acalable as a catfish. Even Linux's first shot at SMP
>> >scales to 2 processors better than NT 4.0. It has taken this long,
>> >believe it or not, to get NT to the point where it runs faster on 8
>> >processors than it does on 2. Any Unix kicks its ass in this regard.
>>
>> False.
>>
>> NT with dual CPU's exhibited up to an 80% performance gain than with
>> just one CPU running Adobe Photoshop. PCWeek conducted the tests.
>>
>> An 80% performance gain is pretty acceptable for adding another
>> processor. I don't think you can get to the theoretical limit of 100%
>> gain. If UNIX can do this, then I'd agree that UNIX is a lot better
>> at scaling.
>>
>> However, the only tests that I've seen are from PCWeek and the Adobe
>> Photoshop example. Adobe Photoshop makes extensive use of threads
>> under NT and 95.
>
>Actually I think Joe's statement was the correct one. I've found that NT
>is probably the worst SMP OS on the market. PC-Week did a benchmark
>comparing NT Server with Novel and OS/2 which found that on identical
>hardware, not only was OS/2 the fastest of the three when configured
>with 1 processor, the single processor benchmark of OS/2 beat the 2
>processor benchmark for NT by a factor of about 40% -- adding a second
>processor to OS/2 boosts performance by about 90%.
I'd like to see your source. Are you talking about the old file and
print services test with NT 3.5? The one where NT smoked both OS/2
and Novell as an application server?
>
>> >(6) MS doesn't do communications well, never has. Is that the reason
>> >for NT's socket-fatigue? For the 10 concurrent socket max? While
>> >Linux and other free Unix products can handle hundreds and hundreds
>> >of simultaneous connections without breathing hard?
>>
>> NT can handle more than 10 concurrent socket connections. I don't
>> know where you heard this.
>>
>> We typically have hundreds of connections to our Lotus Notes servers
>> here (quad Pentium Pro machines), and these servers are *fast* running
>> NT. Over two thousand users are subscribed to the machine.
>>
>> NT isn't 'breathing hard'. Lotus themselves even document that NT
>> servers are some of the fastest Lotus Notes servers around, especially
>> on dual CPU architectures from Compaq and HP.
>
>Ok, let me offer a little insight here. I'm posting from my personal ISP
>and not from work. I'll not mention my employers name since officially I
>do not speak for my employer. That being said...
>
>Our company is, among other things, a major web hosting facility on the
>internet. We host web sites, applications, and commerce for a lot of
>very large "Fortune 500" corporations. Most of these web sites tend to
>run on Unix boxes. In fact, we load dozens of sites onto single unix
>boxes configured with all manner of applications and these boxes serve
>down in excess of 1,000,000 hits PER HOUR without breaking a sweat --
>during high-visibility media events we throttle our unix servers much
>harder.
>
>Now here's the interesting part. We USED to offer hosting on NT servers
>as well as unix servers, but this service has been withdrawn because we
>had far too many problems. Basically we found that if two different
>applications ran on a single NT server, that server was not stable, we
>segregating the applications so that multiple sites (running common
>software) could exist on a single NT box, but we found that even this is
>not stable. Ultimately we discovered that if we ran only a single site
>with a single application on a single NT (well configured) *THEN* we
>could manage to get the box to serve down about 1,000,000 hits PER DAY
>(note that the unix spec was PER HOUR, not PER DAY).
>
>We checked with other major Internet hosting sites and found that they
>all had similar experiences and have agreed that NT is simply "not ready
>for prime time".
>
>Further, our Unix boxes can run SMP in High-Availability servers, in
>HA-Clusters, Mirrored, etc. NT clustering simply isn't mature. A single
>box can run with multiple IP addresses and hostnames which are very
>nicely seperated (the public has no way of knowning that two different
>web sites are in fact on the same box). I don't work as heavily with NT
>systems as with unix systems, but the NT folks (Microsoft employees, not
>ours) report that if you run multiple IPs on NT that you still only have
>one set of ports (so you can't run a web server with an address like
>10.10.10.10:80 and another web server on 10.10.10.11:80 -- because the
>ports will conflict).
>
>NT doesn't scale well, doesn't multitask well, doesn't integrate with
>anything NOT made in Redmond Washington, and isn't stable.
I completely disagree. I find NT multitasks very well, and is very,
very stable.
Sure, if you are talking scalability as a function of how many
additional processors, UNIX should certainly win with its expensive,
proprietary hardware.
NT scales very well up to four processors (out of the box).
And this is on a myriad of different hardware.
We host a few web sites with NT on the Internet, and they have done
remarkably well.
-Todd
>
>I've noticed that the folks who say it does tend to be former Windows
>3.1 users and Windows 95 users. Compared to Windows 3.1 and Windows 95,
>I imagine NT looks pretty damn good. Compared to unix, well...
>
>You also mentioned some stuff on Lotus Notes/Domino. I'll comment here
>because we happen to have considerable experience in this area.
>IBM/Lotus has admitted to us that Domino on Solaris is more stable and
>preferred over Domino on NT. Naturally IBM would rather see us run this
>on IBM RS/6000s with AIX than Solaris -- but they are first and foremost
>a hardware company.
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------
> Timothy S. Campbell / tcam...@concentric.net
> "Very funny Scotty... now beam down my clothes"
>---------------------------------------------------
r.e.b...@usa.net
In article ,
"Rob Eamon" wrote:
>
> r.e.b...@usa.net wrote in message ...
> >In article ,
> > pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
> >>
> [snip]
>
> >This is really scary folks. I have worked in a clearing house before and
> >the thought of having the entire clearing operation for the exchanges
> >subject to the reliability of Windows NT 4.0 is absolutely terrifying. A
> >few well timed "bombs" during market swings could bankrupt many
> >brokerages and wipe out customer bases. There is a real possibility that
> >Bill Gates could reduce the field from 1000 to 1, an unknown firm
> >controlled and owned by Microsoft or Bill Gates himself.
> >
> >The NASD has used UNIX as it's primary vehicle for real-time trading and
> >has relied on ADP to provide the audit reports required to confirm proper
> >clearing of those transactions. The shift to NT servers could result in
> >destabilization of world economies in a matter of minutes.
>
> Oh, yes. I forgot about the part where everyone at NASD got
> lobotomies. No doubt they'll just blindly install NT and move
> everything over and not test anything. Just as they did when
> they put UNIX in. Damn idiots.
>
At least with UNIX they had comprehensive documentation of all
file formats, communication protocols, and coding standards. For
a modest price they were able to get the source code as well.
UNIX also had a track history of supporting mission critical systems
for the Military, Telecommunications, Emergency dispatch systems,
Transportation systems, and other large-scale high traffic systems
BEFORE it was ever installed on NASD.
> >The question is, are you willing to bet your life savings, house,
> >retirement funds, and current debt structure that Microsoft Windows NT
> >will never fail, never be comprimised by an overload or a generated
> >attack?
> No more so than someone hacking into the Unix-based system.
The fact is you are already trusting everything I've mentioned above to
UNIX based systems. The telephone switching systems, most of the IP
routers, and most of the infrastructure is based on UNIX variants and
controlled by UNIX systems. AT&T tweaked UNIX to the point where they
could measure downtime in parts per million. After that, the competition
RAISED the bar.
With the exception of a few stupid releases (Solaris 2.0 - 2.1 for
Intel), the UNIX standard of high reliability, stability, mantainability,
and supportability has been maintained. It is expected.
The concept of rebooting the computer because an application "hung" or
having a "crash" caused by an errant application is to UNIX users what
Polio is to middle class americans. It's something that once happened,
before they were born, but hasn't happened for years.
Those who remember OS/9 level 1, or Unix Version 7, can remember when
UNIX could "crash" because of software caused system corruption. That
was back in 1982. Almost 16 years ago.
> >The scary thing is that a single failure of such a system could
> >make the crash of 1929 look like a minor correction. A properly timed
> >attack could result in giving Bill Gates ownership of major portions of
> >the world's most important corporations.
> >
> >The clearing function is so critical that a failure in this arena, or a
> >breach of trust can lead to impoverishment of anyone, at any time, and
> >the eventual ruin of everyone.
> That's why it's heavily monitored and will continue to be. Perhaps
> at some point they'll give up on NT and go back to Unix.
There are no official public records of reliability for NT. My own
numbers indicate that NT has a major system failure requiring a reboot
about once per week. The numbers comming in from Linux users indicate
that they run a routine maintenance reboot about once every three months.
There are UNIX clusters such as those used for Directoryl Assistance,
MCI Billing, and LIFE-911 systems that have published down-times
of 15 seconds/year or uptimes of over 99.9998%.
The only systems that have a higher level of reliability are those
programmed in FORTH (Car computers, FEDEX trackers, Microwaves, VCRs,
elevators, medical equipment...). This is because the entire FORTH
kernal, and it's source code are provided, available, and understood by
every programmer.
Of course, the average FORTH "kernel" is less than 8 kilobytes. There are
only about 10,000 professional FORTH programmers in the world, and
they are so efficient that there isn't enough work to support them. They
make over $500/hour and it's a bargain.
> >> Gates, of course, champions business practices which have a single,
> >> simple goal: the complete elimination of competition. Netscape and
> >> Novell are only the latest two victims. For Gates to claim that
> >> Microsoft favors competition is like Idi Amin claiming to be for human
> >> rights, or for the paparazzi to say they respect the right to privacy,
> >> or for a cocaine whore to say she is doing it for pleasure.
> >Microsoft has openly declared war on all non-Microsoft products, services,
> >and competitors.
> And the objectives of other companies are different?
Many companies such as Sun, HP, and DEC have strived to encourage
interoperability, flexibility, and a focus on workability based on
customer needs. Sun and AT&T have gone so far as to publish source code
and publish it freely under a General Public License that not only allows
distribution, but also prevents companies from perverting their software
into a non-standard form.
> >Microsoft has danced under, over, and around the law,
> >and openly defied settlements, contracts, and court orders. This is who
> >we want to trust with the financial stability of the World? It's insane!
> Do we trust the financial stability of the world to the machines? Not
> quite.
The financial stability is based on a mutual trust of the systems,
people, and infrastructure used to conduct billions of financial
transactions every day. When these structures are comprimised, such as
the Bearings Bank incident, the market is mildly affected. When, during
the crash of 1987, the financial markets were unable to access the
information systems that enabled them to make responsible and informed
decisions due to system overloads, the panic that followed created shock
waves that were felt for months.
Shortly after that, companies switched to UNIX based servers
that used UNIX based protocols fed by UNIX based communication
systems. The editorial systems were managed by VAX clusters.
When necessary, content was coverted to legacy formats. The result
was an extremely stable environment.
As NT has infiltrated the financial infrastructure, systems have
destabilized, making minor fluctuations and minor corrections more
dramatic. When key NT systems fail, the effect can be quite disruptive.
During a swing, whether up or down the demand on support infrastructures
can exceed 10,000 concurrent users for hours. When these users are
"locked out" or when systems "fail" under such loads, the immediate
impact is usually to "pull out" and wait until the fog clears. Financial
services firms often lose customers following such "fog", and each
dissatisfied customer usually impacts 20 other customers.
Microsoft Nondisclosure agreements prohibit reverse engineering of file
formats, protocols, applications, or even foundation classes used by
Microsoft programs and components. Financial services companies are very
strict about compliance with the terms of all such contracts. This means
that Bill Gates, a disgruntled Microsoft employee, or a renegade hacker
with no sense of ethics could intentionally destabilize or comprimise a
financial services information system, or multiple systems, generating a
panic. If that person had the right resources (a few billion in pocket
money), they could purchase subtantial portions of major corporations at
bargain basement prices. By the time the investment community recovered
and saw the SEC filings, it would be too late for them to react.
One must consider the character of Microsoft senior management, and one
must consider the nature of the talent Microsoft attracts. Microsoft
attracts the most ambitious and ruthless players, attracted to the most
powerful company in the world led by the most powerful man in the world.
Even if Bill Gates were a pillar of integrity, a benevolent
philanthropist, a trusted and honored leader who was internationally
recognized for his support of humanitarian causes, there would be
Leutenants, Enforcers, and insiders who have quirks that may be veiled
behind the facade. A study of the Third Reich can provide insight into
the potential threat posed by a Microsoft Monopoly of the Financial
Services Infrastructure. Even good, honest men were eventually twisted to
the whims of Mengala, Eichmann, and Hitler's "Inner Circle".
Even under Ghandi, there were those who used the unity and independence
gained by Ghandi to eventually polarize Muslim had Hindu factions in a
quest for power that Ghandi was willing to die to end.
Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
There is little evidence that Microsoft would be an exception.
Bob O
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:41:42, r.e.b...@usa.net wrote:
> One must consider the character of Microsoft senior management, and one
> must consider the nature of the talent Microsoft attracts. Microsoft
> attracts the most ambitious and ruthless players, attracted to the most
> powerful company in the world led by the most powerful man in the world.
> Even if Bill Gates were a pillar of integrity, a benevolent
> philanthropist, a trusted and honored leader who was internationally
> recognized for his support of humanitarian causes, there would be
> Leutenants, Enforcers, and insiders who have quirks that may be veiled
> behind the facade. A study of the Third Reich can provide insight into
> the potential threat posed by a Microsoft Monopoly of the Financial
> Services Infrastructure. Even good, honest men were eventually twisted to
> the whims of Mengala, Eichmann, and Hitler's "Inner Circle".
>
> Even under Ghandi, there were those who used the unity and independence
> gained by Ghandi to eventually polarize Muslim had Hindu factions in a
> quest for power that Ghandi was willing to die to end.
>
> Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
>
> There is little evidence that Microsoft would be an exception.
>
Good observation. Also, the Hitler Youth movement was a primary source of
new recruits. It is a well known fact that young people are more
impressionable, so when you create of mix of ambitious and ruthless
experience players with a huge youth movement, you are developing a very
scary culture. I don't like using the Nazi analogy with Microsoft in that
I in no way consider them anything like the sort of evil threat that the
Nazis turned out to be. However, I do have real concern about general
business ethics taking a beating and the general welfare of the nation if
not the world when cooperation collapses. The MS youth recruiting program
could be viewed as a desire to seek out a new more aggressive business
soldier. Indeed it would be extremely interesting to see examples of
Microsoft entrance exams and then take a look at the grading procedures.
It would be further very illuminating to look at these tests and see what
differences exist, if any, between recruits for marketing positions versus
programming positions.
Bob O - Computing for fun
Aaron R Kulkis
Jerry Coffey wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:01:20 GMT, pa...@pjprimer.com (Joe Barr) wrote:
>
> >
> >[MILES OF ANTI-GATES REGURGITATION]
> >
> >When I say that Bill Gates is a lying, chickenshit scumbag who is
> >terrifed of competition, I mean exactly what I say. The putrid little
> >puke simply does not possess the moral qualities required to compete
> >in the sense of the word that all the lawsuits are about. He is a
> >pathological liar. His statements to the financial community in
> >London about Microsoft's love of competetition is prima facie evidence
> >of his condition.
> >
> >[EVEN MORE NAUSEATING TRIPE]
> >
>
> I'm glad Bill Gates exists. I can live with his industry presence as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> long as it continues to annoy the shit out of people like you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
Even if his annoyance is due to the recognition that both he and you
are getting screwed by Bill? How childish and simplistic.....
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Administrator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I speak for me, not my employer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron R Kulkis
Bernd Paysan displays amazing stupidity:
The issue is NOT what he did with his private parts...it's about lying,
it's about inducing subordinates to lie, it's about the flagrant
of power...(which is why we have moral standards in the first place...
you set arbitrary lines so as to see if a person is willing to live
withing *some* sort of rules beyone "me! me! me!"
The issue now is the same as with Nixon...obstruction of justice.
(Which isn't surprising, considering that the man (and I use the
term loosely in this case) should be...let's say, suffer appropriate
punishment for high treason (*GIVING* a S. Cal. naval yard to the Red
Chinese at the same time that they are threatening to nuke L.A....ok
maybe that would be a favor to us, but, I don't think they Chinese
we're meaning it in a friendly gesture sort of way...)
Or how about declaring the largest deposif of clean-burning low-sulpher
coal in the world to be the "Utah Monument"....when the 2nd largest
just *coincidentally* belongs to The Lippo Group in Indonesia
....gee...where do I keep hearing that name.. oh yeah... foreign
campaign contributions...money laundering.
Hey, it's ok as long as Billy C and Billy G get what *they* want,
no matter how many of *us* get screwed...right?!?!?!??!
Todd Walk
r.e.b...@usa.net writes:
>Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
Power doesn't corrupt. Power attracts the corruptable.
BG doesn't have to search for people of a certain type
of "bad" character. Those kind of people will gravatate
to him naturally, whether he wants them or not, simply
because of the power he has. (I'm not saying anything
about BG's character here.)
Todd Walk
wa...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
David Sutherland
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 04:22:11 GMT, todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus)
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:03:39 -0500, Tim Campbell
><tcam...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
I'd agree with most of this. NT doesn't scale or multitask anything
like a UNIX box. Following the recent NDS debacle, NT's integration
is uncertain, but I would say that as a desktop OS NT is very stable.
Personally, I wouldn't deploy it as anything more than a file and
print server and it performs adequately in that role. Where I *would*
deploy it is as a desktop OS.
>I completely disagree. I find NT multitasks very well, and is very,
>very stable.
>
On the smaller scale. It really isn't an enterprise OS (yet?).
>Sure, if you are talking scalability as a function of how many
>additional processors, UNIX should certainly win with its expensive,
>proprietary hardware.
>
UNIX hardware isn't always proprietary. Mostly, but not always :)
>NT scales very well up to four processors (out of the box).
>
But not as well as *nix.
>And this is on a myriad of different hardware.
>
>We host a few web sites with NT on the Internet, and they have done
>remarkably well.
>
I still wouldn't put NT in the same class as a unix box for speed,
scalability and stability. If one of our boxes crashes we investigate
why - we don't just dismiss it as "one of those things" - an attitude
common with NT servers.
>>---------------------------------------------------
>> Timothy S. Campbell / tcam...@concentric.net
>> "Very funny Scotty... now beam down my clothes"
>>---------------------------------------------------
>
>Todd Kepus - Japan Hewlett Packard - todd_...@hp.com
>--------------------------------------------------------
>*The standard disclaimers et. al. (and stuff) apply.
>"I am not an HP spokesperson, and any opinions presented
> here are mostly likely _not_ those of HP's"
>--------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
David Sutherland.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:01:44 +0100, Bernd Paysan
<bernd....@remove.muenchen.this.org.junk> uttered:
>By common sense, the last seven of the Ten Commandments are
>covered (and a hell lot more), while the first three aren't.
Not surprising: the first three are means to turn a polytheistic
culture into a monotheistic one. Wouldn't have any meaning in
Confucianism AFAIK.
ObGates: the quote in my .sig.
--
"We're only healthy if the industry as a whole is healthy and
thriving. Most types of software aren't appropriate for us to do.
For those that are, we'll always have competition." - Bill Gates
to...@online.no http://www.pvv.org/%7etoriver/
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:20:26 -0700, "Rob Eamon"
<rre...@idahopower.bitmosphere.com> uttered:
>You're still questioning the intelligence of the NASD people. I never
>said NT was better. I was pointing out that the NASD people must
>feel they can make it work--they're not dummies.
There is a thick line separating a statement to the effect that "yes,
an NT system can be configured to meet the requirements for Orange
Book C-2 certification" and the marketing material MS produced based
on that statement. Do anyone know if NT has been tested against Red
Book C-2 (with networking)?
--
"Between our dreams and actions lies this world."
- Bruce Springsteen, "Dead Man Walking"
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen to...@online.no
Phil Brewster
On Mon, Jan 26, 1998 1:34 PM, Bob O <mailto:osb...@deletemeibm.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 19:20:26, "Rob Eamon"
><rre...@idahopower.bitmosphere.com> wrote:
>
>> >One must consider the character of Microsoft senior management, and one
>> >must consider the nature of the talent Microsoft attracts. Microsoft
>
>> >attracts the most ambitious and ruthless players, attracted to the most
>> >powerful company in the world led by the most powerful man in the
world.
>> >Even if Bill Gates were a pillar of integrity, a benevolent
>> >philanthropist, a trusted and honored leader who was internationally
>> >recognized for his support of humanitarian causes, there would be
>> >Leutenants, Enforcers, and insiders who have quirks that may be veiled
>> >behind the facade. A study of the Third Reich can provide insight into
>> >the potential threat posed by a Microsoft Monopoly of the Financial
>> >Services Infrastructure. Even good, honest men were eventually twisted
to
>> >the whims of Mengala, Eichmann, and Hitler's "Inner Circle".
>>
Reich,
>> you bring up an issue that does require scrutiny. Checks and balances
>> are key to success.
>
>I agree that references to the Third Reich carries many connotations
beyond
>the issue being discussed. Nuremburg trials revealed a Germany controlled
>by a madman whose word was law. If you remove the madman part, the rest
>of
>the analogy fits to a tee. Unfortunately, the combination of ruthless and
>agressive tactics, the recruiting of socalled elite youth has no closer
>analogy that I can think of than the Third Reich. I would not call Bill
>Gates insane though. While that most likely significantly changes the
>likelihood of a repetition of the resultant horrors perpetrated by the
>Third Reich, the rest of the world conquest analogy remains intact.
>
>You have a propaganda machine, you have a youth movement, you have
>cutthroat marketing tactics, you have a monopoly and power that attracts
>power seekers, you have an elitist agenda (essentially a manifestation of
>the youth movement and ersatz IQ testing for selection over other
tangibles
>and intangibles). There just are not many other examples of all this
>coming together in history that I am aware of.
>
>I would certainly prefer to have a less sensitive analogy used, but this
is
>an analogy that a broad cross section of the public has become aware of.
>However, I also would welcome a less controversial analogy.
>
>
>
>Bob O - Computing for fun
>
The problem is that the analogy with Hitler's Germany will always break
down and therefore be useless as an analogy.
Basically, one can't simply remove 'the madman part' and 'the resultant
horrors' part and still claim the analogy holds, IMHO, without
unintentionally falsifying history. Without the madman and the horrors, the
Third Reich is no longer the Third Reich, but an abstraction for 'power'
that can then be safely compared to Microsoft's marketing strategies, etc.
I.e., the words 'Third Reich' themselves become meaningless in the process.
The point is, the conquest of market segments is an abstraction compared to
the reality of the 'Blitzkrieg' in London or of having Panzer divisions
rolling across your front lawn in Eastern Europe 50-60 years ago. Being
forced to attend a Win95 training seminar because management says so, is
eons removed (morally and historically) from having your door kicked in by
SS troops in the middle of the night and being bodily deported to a
concentration camp, unless one is hysterical enough to start imagining mass
graves of Mac and UNIX users as a result of Microsoft's domination of the
computing world (I can't, and I don't believe anyone should....).
And so on..... It's impossible to turn that kind of reality into a metaphor
or analogy for something else without causing the reality to begin to pale
and seem less brutal than it actually was, even though that is not one's
intent. I note in parentheses that there has been an 'escalation' in
political rhetoric on both the Left and Right in the use of terms like
'Nazi' to express disagreement or contempt in the past 30 years,
accompanied by a weakening of our collective historical grasp of the moral
facts about Nazism as a consequence: from the denunciation of 'fascist pig
cops' in the '60's to the silly hyperbole of Rush Limbaugh talking about
'femnazis' in the '90's. And of course examples abound on Usenet as well
('You don't agree with me? -- Then you must be some kind of Nazi!', etc.,
as sad as this may seem in all its triviality....).
I realize these distinctions between analogy and historical reality are
obvious (or should be), and that you were trying to do them justice, Bob.
But they are also the reason why the analogy itself is inadequate at best,
and tasteless at worst, whenever it is invoked in these discussions on
Usenet. So I would agree that we need to find other analogies for our
criticisms of Microsoft (the spirit of which I share, much of the time....
<g>), and soon.
Or, if one wishes to say that Microsoft is brutal, relentless, and bent on
dominating the computing world, then ultimately perhaps one should simply
dispense with the analogies altogether, and just say it.
Cheers,
--------
Phil Brewster (pjbrew at ix dot netcom dot com)
"Nothing occurs to me on the subject of Hitler."
-- Karl Kraus (1933), whose gift for satirical understatement said it
all.....
Aaron R Kulkis
Actually, it's errelevent if the leader is a madman, or just
ruthless. It's his *BEHAVIOR* that counts, and it's quite
obvious that Mr. Gates is just as much a megalomaniac as the
other guy, but he 1) wants to make money, and 2) doesn't have
the Treaty of Versailles on his mind--so, he's not motivated
to use weaponry (yet...)
Aaron R. Kulkis
Bob O
I sympathize with what you are saying. The analogy has problems and may be
overreaching in its implications. Still there are important issues and
similarities here. The point is, one should not wait to identify
sociopathic tendencies until such time that it is a reality that London is
being bombed or Panzer divisions are rolling across your front lawn.
Perhaps as a historian you should, but this is a debate forum.
At which point should have the propaganda machines and the developing
culture of Nazism been identified as bad?
Thus the analogy is of early development of the movement not what the
movement did later as a result of being headed by a madman. What is at
discussion here is culture, mind control, and questionable business ethics
and the potential for harm no matter the intentions of the leader.
One admirable goal of jewish organizations today is to not let us forget.
I think what needs to not be forgotten is how elitist cultures are formed
in their early stages. I was supporting another poster that made some of
the analogies above that one might consider indicating the formation of a
dangerous culture (aka cult). At this point I am not even saying that it
is a political danger, but it could be a danger to world progress and if
times get tough for all other businesses it could lead to a political
ideology. You know the drill, Microsoft is successful the nation as a
whole is not, there must be something wrong with the nation, perhaps it is
too many dumb people that don't meet the Microsoft standards.
Now excuse me, I did not intend to go this far with the analogy, but you
sort of forced by hand. After all your desire was to require that tanks be
driving across my lawn before I start yelling foul! I think that is
bullshit!
r.e.b...@usa.net
In article <34cd2f76...@news1.ibm.net>,
suther9@**ANTI-SPAM**ibm.net (David Sutherland) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 04:22:11 GMT, todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus)
>
> [snip]
>
> >>NT doesn't scale well, doesn't multitask well, doesn't integrate with
> >>anything NOT made in Redmond Washington, and isn't stable.
> I'd agree with most of this. NT doesn't scale or multitask anything
> like a UNIX box. Following the recent NDS debacle, NT's integration
> is uncertain, but I would say that as a desktop OS NT is very stable.
> Personally, I wouldn't deploy it as anything more than a file and
> print server and it performs adequately in that role. Where I *would*
> deploy it is as a desktop OS.
As a desktop, it's not too bad. I'm told that with 128 Meg of RAM, a
4 gigabyte disk drive, and a Pentium II processor that some of the
clashes that plague less well equipped boxes become extremely rare. I
wouldn't know since the best I've had was 64 meg, a Pentium 200, and
a 2 gig drive.
Of course, at home, I have a 486/100 with 8 meg of Ram, a P 60 with 16
meg, and a K5-133 with 32 meg. They all run Linux very comfortably and
the K5 really struggles to run NT at all (I get BSODs when no one is
there).
Nearly 40% of the PC market was machines costing less than $1000 (USA
today 1/26/97, page 1B). These would be good candidates for Linux. An
"NT ready machine" would cost closer to $4000, including software and
monitor.
For a corporate site, where the primary function is to answer customer
service calls, Linux could very easily provide web-browser, java, and
database interfaces on a machine costing under $1000 (including monitor).
> >I completely disagree. I find NT multitasks very well, and is very,
> >very stable.
NT Multithreads well, but running lots of different programs at the same
time on the same server is not an NT strong point. It's a really big
problem if several of them are using shared libraries and shared memory
buffers.
> On the smaller scale. It really isn't an enterprise OS (yet?).
I question whether it will ever be. The main advantage of NT is
ease of use and minimal need for training. This advantagis is rapidly
being eroded by Linux, Caldara Desktop, KDE, CDE, and the other
"user friendly" environments that are now available for UNIX and Linux.
The addition of Java beans and Browser interfaces is creating the
possibility of even better TCO.
Finally there is the issue of data re-use. More and more, information is
coming from sources other than manual input, incuding web-sites, e-mail,
usenet, EDI, and other interchange formats. UNIX can often be used to
optimize the use of such information.
> >Sure, if you are talking scalability as a function of how many
> >additional processors, UNIX should certainly win with its expensive,
> >proprietary hardware.
> UNIX hardware isn't always proprietary. Mostly, but not always :)
Linux, BSDi, SCO, and Solaris all run on standard PCs. In fact, they need
less RAM, Disk, and CPU to produce a bigger result. In additiont, Beowulf
can be implemented using fairly generic hardware.
> >NT scales very well up to four processors (out of the box).
UNIX scales to 128 pretty well. There are UNIX systems that support
up to 1024 processors (AT&T). There is also hot matrix clustering
such as Beowolf or clustering from Sun, Dec, and HP. Then there is
RPC, CORBA, and message queuing.
> But not as well as *nix.
> >And this is on a myriad of different hardware.
UltraSparC?, Tahoe, Mips R5000, 64 bit Alpha? NT itself has been ported
to several 32 bit CPUs, but even there the support in terms of third
party software, or even Microsoft generated software, seems to lag the
Intel support.
> >We host a few web sites with NT on the Internet, and they have done
> >remarkably well.
> I still wouldn't put NT in the same class as a unix box for speed,
> scalability and stability. If one of our boxes crashes we investigate
> why - we don't just dismiss it as "one of those things" - an attitude
> common with NT servers.
If "one of those things" is a denial of service attack, or a deliberate
misuse of an MFC to corrupt a competitor product, this can be a very big
problem. Maybe this is just the rehearsal for a more strategically timed
attack. Maybe the attack wasn't from a casual high school student, but
instead was from a competitor, rival, or disgruntled employee. Even if
there was no malicious intent, do you want to "let it slide" until, during
the peak hours of the year, Murphy's Law runs it's course.
At AT&T, the culture around UNIX was not "nothing can go wrong" but rather
that things will go wrong, and at the worst possible time. The result was
structures for rapidly solving problems and making sure they didn't happen
again. This culture has thrived in the successors to UNIX as well.
> >>---------------------------------------------------
> >> Timothy S. Campbell / tcam...@concentric.net
> >> "Very funny Scotty... now beam down my clothes"
> >>---------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Todd Kepus - Japan Hewlett Packard - todd_...@hp.com
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >*The standard disclaimers et. al. (and stuff) apply.
> >"I am not an HP spokesperson, and any opinions presented
> > here are mostly likely _not_ those of HP's"
> >--------------------------------------------------------
>
> Regards,
> David Sutherland.
JEDI
On 26 Jan 1998 19:45:08 GMT, Jason S. <ja...@jhste1.dyn.ml.org> wrote:
>Bernd Paysan wrote:
>
>>> In Billy G's response to the Federal Judge's order and Billy C's
>>> response to his latest sexual crisis, we see examples of logical
>>> endpoints for moral relativism.
>
>>Well, this witch hunting case "Billy C." isn't something you'd call
>
>
>>"moral relativism". Even a president has the right for a private life,
>>and sexual affairs are part of private life, and definitely not a thing
>
>a line between "consensual affairs" and exploitation. Sexual harassment
It all depends on your view of women as moral agents.
Now if you would like to advocate a more military view
of what sexual misconduct (vs harassment) in the general
case then say so.
Even so, it's still the alleged victims call.
>is not legal. The use of a power relationship to secure sexual favors
>does seem to fall into the "harassment" category, and is at very least
>distasteful.
>
>>of a public hearing. The fact that B.C. still has a functional c*ck
>>doesn't mean he's immorale; the fact that the american society cares
>
>Are cover-ups "immoral"? The liberals seem to feel that Mr. Nixon's
>cover-up was worthy of impeachment proceedings.
Hmmm... lesse: breaking an entering and campaign expionage vs.
a affair...
Give us a break.
>
>>more about a supposed bed story of their president than of anything else
>>shows how bigot and bimoral this society is. After all, he's not elected
>>as pope, although the pope has two morals, too (human rights, rigth to
>>freely believe - good for others, bad for his followers: priests can't
>>marry, females can't become priests, and the archives of inquisition
>>opened just recently - as an example about what's definitly the contrary
>>to the right to freely believe).
>
>Does this mean that it's okay to tell the girl to lie under oath to
>cover up the affair? That's the real issue here.
You sure put a lot of faith in hearsay...
Phil Brewster
On Tue, Jan 27, 1998 9:30 AM, Bob O <mailto:osb...@deletemeibm.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:07:48, "Phil Brewster" <pjb...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 1998 1:34 PM, Bob O <mailto:osb...@deletemeibm.net>
I trust you're not confusing me with Neville Chamberlain in this matter....
;-)
You've asked me to pinpoint when it became clear that Hitler was a madman,
and I would say that the programmatic drivel he wrote in "Mein Kampf"
(1923) already leaves little doubt. Further, that the 'resultant horrors'
were visible from the moment he took power. For example, one of his first
acts as Chancellor of Germany in April 1933 was to declare a national
boycott of all Jewish-owned businesses, most of which were summarily
'gleichgeschaltet', i.e., taken over by 'Aryan' owners with brute force.
Jewish citizens who resisted and known political opponents of the Nazis
were rounded up by the SA and incarcerated at Dachau from Day 1. And so
on.....
It appears we disagree about the chronology of the movement in its early
phases, for one thing, and I don't know how else to clarify my position in
this matter of historical causality than to put on my historian's cap
again; sorry..... The fact is, Hitler and the Nazi party gained power in
1933 by burning down the German parliament building in the middle of the
night, blaming it on the Communists, and then invoking the need for
'emergency powers of state' to restore order. It was a political coup
d'etat (a 'putsch', in the Nazi lingo....), and propaganda, mind control,
swaying the masses, etc., had darned little to do with it, at first.
If you read almost any account of the last years of the Weimar Republic,
'Nazi politics' consisted entirely of street fighting led by the SA, while
Hitler quietly weaseled his way into the political system as Hindenburg's
successor, posing as just another conservative German nationalist. The
'Nazi propaganda machine' at the time consisted of: 1) one newspaper ("Der
voelkische Beobachter"), which most people considered a joke until every
other paper was suddenly shut down or taken over ['gleichgeschaltet'] in
1933-34, and 2) bundles of pamphlets thrown off of trucks on street corners
as part of what were essentially on-going election campaigns in the midst
of Weimar's political turmoil (when no one party held the majority of seats
in parliament, and none could get it together enough to form coalitions
with the others to oppose the larger threat: the growing extremes on the
Right and the Left -- this being the most apt analogy for the current state
of affairs in non-Windows *.advocacy groups on Usenet much of the time,
BTW.... <g>). So this much was true of the Nazi lie that 'the Communists
did it' in the wake of the Reichstag fire in 1933: If there had not been a
Nazi takeover, there most likely would have been a Communist revolution in
Germany during those years, since the parliamentary system was in a
shambles and too weak to oppose either extreme. As a consequence, many
Germans considered Nazism the lesser of the two evils after Hitler had
taken power via emergency decrees in 1933. So, one day you were a citizen
of the republic with certain basic rights, the next day you were either a
'racially pure' member of the Reich or fleeing the country. (That Panzer
tank was indeed on your lawn from Day 1, IOW, even if you didn't know it
yet....)
So again, the actual role of propaganda and so forth leading up to this was
minimal, at first. Where it became necessary were in the years *after*
Hitler and the Nazis were the de facto rulers of the country: to legitimize
and stabilize the regime after the takeover had already occurred. The
Hitler Youth also did not become a factor until after 1933, as the
'gleichgeschaltete' ['Nazified'] renaming and repurposing of apolitical
German youth groups such as the 'Pfadfinder', which were about as evil as
the Boy Scouts or the YMCA up until then.....
So the propaganda machine, the mind control through a constant barrage of
indoctrination in the media and in the schools, and so forth, existed after
the fact during the mid and late 1930s and then throughout WWII, as an
exercise of absolute political power, not as what preceded or enabled that
power to gain dominance in the first place. -- The Nazis accomplished this
much by direct means: occupying the media by brute force, disposing of the
political opposition by brute force, and so on, in the first 16 months
after Hitler took over. This early phase culminated in the so-called 'Roehm
putsch' of June 1934, when Hitler accused his first lieutenant and
right-hand man, the leader of the SA that had carried out these orders
during the first 16 months of Nazi rule and knocked down anything and
everything that stood in their way, of treason and had him and other key SA
officers summarily executed. Anybody who wasn't convinced by this point
that Hitler was a madman wouldn't be convinced by the outcome of the
Nuremburg trials, either (well into the 1950's Hitler was known in postwar
German schools as 'the guy who built the Autobahn', for instance.....).
End of history lesson. -- The point is, at any juncture you might care to
name between 1933 and 1945, mind control and propaganda were the least of
anybody's worries living in the Third Reich.
And so I reiterate my position that the reality of the Third Reich and the
reality of Microsoft are of two vastly different orders of magnitude,
morally and historically, rendering analogies of kind between them highly
inappropriate, IMNSHO, no matter how accurate they may seem in the
abstract....
If you want analogies to denounce the dangers of mind control, why not use
Orwell's "1984"? If OTOH, you want analogies to denounce the dangers of
being shot on sight the moment you voice an opposing viewpoint in public,
then by all means use the Third Reich as a historically accurate point of
reference, since such was the reality of the Third Reich from Day 1.....
For the record, I am not objecting to the need for remaining attentive to
'early warning signs' in the case of Microsoft and the power it has already
acquired in the market, but in opposing those signs I would agree with the
previously posted standpoint that 'checks and balances are key to success'.
IOW, I don't believe that drawing abstract analogies between Microsoft and
the Third Reich is a useful means of warning people of the dangers of
Microsoft's dominance, since the result of such analogies is likely to be
an escalating of hysteria rather than a deepening of insight, no matter
what the intent.
I mean, I thought that was one of the reasons we had Godwin's Law around
here, wasn't it?.... :-)
Anyway, it was not my intent to place myself in the role of 'Analogy Cop'
on these newsgroups. I have stated my position on the matter, and how
others choose to post, what rhetorical strategies they consider
appropriate, etc., is basically none of my business.
Cheers,
--------
Phil Brewster (pjbrew at ix dot netcom dot com)
``Apple will still be going out of business when we all retire.''
-- Paul Saffo, Institute for the Future
Dean Z. Douthat
Phil Brewster (pjb...@nospam.com) wrote:
: IOW, I don't believe that drawing abstract analogies between Microsoft and
: the Third Reich is a useful means of warning people of the dangers of
: Microsoft's dominance, since the result of such analogies is likely to be
: an escalating of hysteria rather than a deepening of insight, no matter
: what the intent.
Thanks, Phil, for your clarifications. As one old enough to remember
much of what you have brought out in your posting, Hitler/Nazi analogies
have a somewhat different effect on me. Knowing such unique evil
incarnate first hand, it is outrageous to have it given moral
equivalence with any business organization and/or its practices.
--
Names: Dean Z. Douthat de...@cyberzone-inc.com
Snail: PO Box 7571 Ann Arbor MI 48107-7571 USA
Phone: (734)747-9170 (voice) (734)747-8478 (fax)
flm...@ibm.net
In <Yqzh521VLZKl-p...@slip129-37-242-216.ca.us.ibm.net>, osb...@deletemeibm.net (Bob O) writes:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 03:28:17, "Soggy" <so...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
||| The question is, are you willing to bet your life savings, house,
||| retirement funds, and current debt structure that Microsoft Windows NT
||| will never fail, never be comprimised by an overload or a generated
||| make the crash of 1929 look like a minor correction. A properly timed
||| attack could result in giving Bill Gates ownership of major portions of
||| the world's most important corporations.
||| The clearing function is so critical that a failure in this arena, or a
||| breach of trust can lead to impoverishment of anyone, at any time, and
||| the eventual ruin of everyone.
||
|| fiction Newsgroup or maybe a conspiracy group where this post would have
|| more relevance
|
| I do not go along to any extent with the Bill Gates takeover part, but a
| single code base is a very scary thing.
| You can look to nature for the answer. Diversity of gene pools is very
| heavily selected method of reproduction.
| The reason is obvious. One virus, one bacteria and the entire species
| could be toast. But diversity in genes builds various defenses making the
| spread of new and unusual viruses usually a less than completely successful
| event.
|
| Java is a far better design because it allows for diversity where
| uniformity is not necessary.
|
Bill Gates is a bridge player. Bridge is a game where you are encouraged to
make false statments in order to fool the competition. But in business, to be
a really good lier over time you need to hide your own motives for telling a lie
and your competence level. Optimally, you should find someone whom you
could credible blame for the falsehood if caught. The gains from lying in business
will be diminished over the long run, because there is no one left to fool.
As Stevenson says in his book, Lets say for instance, that I discover that
what you told me is false. I do not know if you are a liar, an incompetent,
or were yourself given false information by someone you had reason to trust.
Lets say I give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to deal with you
and you continue to tell me things that are false. Over time I stop dealing.
This is the situation Bill Gates finds himself in. He may not be a liar -- he
may be incompetent (not likely), he may have motives for lying (but they
are not hidden) or he may have been given false information by Ballmer
and Neucom, two individuals which he thought he could trust.
Ballmer and Neucom could be the bad guys here. Bill Gates might even
support 100% Pure Java given the 100% pure truth about it.
http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/
software for decision makers.
Bob O
Well as I attempted to point out, all the gore and grief brought to the
world by the Third Reich is plenty of reason to make it a bad analogy
because all analogies do not always end up with the same result.
However, what we are really talking about here is what makes a sociopathic
movement. I have little doubt that the seeds of being a madman were grown
early in Adolf Hitler. There are lots of different kinds of sociopaths,
not all are murderers. Some have actually done some great things. Take
Vincent Van Gogh, for example. Is Bill Gates a sociopath? Probably!
Perhaps it comes from the children games he reportedly played with his
mother, sort of a variation of monopoly. However, I am not interested in
exploring the mind of Bill Gates, nor that of Hitler.
I am more interested in the sociologic results related to when sociopaths
come to power. Do they stand for principles that you would like to instill
in your children such as honesty, fair play, evenhandedness, philanthropy,
equality, freedom, piety, humbleness, etc? After all persons that come to
power become icons that our children look up to. What is interesting in
this respect with Hitler is not that he has a murderous sociopath, but that
there were so many murderous sociopaths in his Nazi movement. How did this
happen? Was he just like a magnet that simply sucked all the murderous
sociopaths out of Germany and gathered them into the Nazi leadership
circle? Or did he grow many of them by indoctrination?
Remove the murderous personality and insert a different sort of sociopathic
personality, one that loves to play word games, doublespeak, greed, poor
ethics, egoism, elitism, etc. and what will the results be? In no way am
I implying that the net result will be a bloodbath, but it could result in
a economic breakdown from a breakdown in cooperation, a flaunting of the
law, and yes even violence. My concern is far less about how far it goes,
but that we even go there in the first place. This is the same sort of
issues that we have to deal with in our lives to protect our children and
keep them on the paths that we have learned from our American political
institutions, our places of worship, and from our culture.
So what is being discussed is a "model" of power, corruption, and deceit.
The fact is that the model may work for a murderer as well as it works for
a drug dealer, or a corrupt businessman. The outcome of the model in the
case of the Third Reich is disconcerting, and well it should be, what we
are talking about is potentially throwing out of balance our institutions
and the diminishing influence of our moral teachings and instead
substituting a model of success via corruption. If this results in haves
and have nots, the next step is more violence. We see this problem in the
inner cities where minorities live and are influenced into the peddling of
drugs by the garish life styles of older persons who succeed in this
enterprise. These are real problems for a society already experiencing a
unusual forces towards the disintegration of the family and morality.
Godwin's Law is a good one. It states that the Third Reich is a required
analogy. IMHO, the Third Reich is the appropriate analogy for situations
that involve power and corruption, and a general disintegration of morality
that seems to follow when such a lack of ethics is openly rewarded.
This whole Consent Decree issue is a great example. From day 1 of the
signing of the Decree, Microsoft PR jumped in and essentially said. Haha,
we fooled them. We are going to be allowed to do business as usual. We
suckered them into an agreement where they got nothing. Then MS goes out
and tries an internet killing flaunting the agreement as if the agreement
had no meaning. The DoJ then sues and MS fights it by saying to the
effect, look folks the second half of the sentence cancels out the first
half. We would have drawn a line through the clause but the DoJ wasn't
dumb enough to fall for that.
People are not dumb. They see this as, "Gee is that what it takes to
succeed?"
Bob O
Perhaps. It would be a breath of fresh air if it were true. This issue,
IMO, borders on the public domain. Microsoft like railroads and the
utility line delivers sits on a major crossroads for commerce in this
country. Naturally they want to protect it as it has resulted in riches
beyond imagination as they exact the toll for passing through the
crossroads.
There are public domain issues here. Confiscation, regulation, are all
remedies that have been used in the past. Peoples homes are force sold to
make way for new highways. Telephone systems are regulated, though
regulation is falling out of favor and probably it should.
Now the new face of regulation seems to be focused on mandating of access.
Telephone companies must allow competitors into its system. Their profits
are being deeply regulated. One easy way to help ensure access would be
to mandate the release of all platform source code on products that
represent major crossroads.
This might mean either control over the licensing of source code or
confiscation. The bottomline, would seem to be that this requirement might
only be levied on software seen as indeed being a crossroads of commerce
(do I hear a sudden shoosh of disintegration?)<g>
What is the right answer? Beats me, I am not expert at these matters. The
only thing that I would request is whatever it takes to encourage operating
system choice and bring competition back into the market.
flm...@ibm.net
Fresh air -- yes! It is like Ebenezer Scrooge in a Christmas Carol according to
Stevenson. Gates if nothing else is an interesting character but like Scrooge
would in not be a rush to welcome him back into the fold of humanity?
Internet is a public resource that Microsoft should not control.
Breaking up Microsoft will not work -- look at AT&T. Release of source
code? Who wants Micorosoft code -- it was not designed to be used for
more than 5 years. I happen to believe that eliminating all Microsoft
preloads is an appropriate remedy.
Stevenson in "Do Lunch or Be Lunch" also discusses this. In a world of
31 flavors where you select vanilla every time do you care if the
govenment outlaws all flavors but vanilla. Most people do. Stevenson
says it that this demonstrates that humans value the freedom of
choice. Preloading takes away a choice. Eliminating the preloading
is actually a value add even if the end consumer still selects
Win95 -- the equivalent of vanilla in this example.
Jason S.
In article <6amvs8$b...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, JEDI wrote:
>>>> In Billy G's response to the Federal Judge's order and Billy C's
>>>> response to his latest sexual crisis, we see examples of logical
>>>> endpoints for moral relativism.
>>>Well, this witch hunting case "Billy C." isn't something you'd call
>>Witch hunting? Was Bob Packwood the victim of a witch hunt?
>>>"moral relativism". Even a president has the right for a private life,
>>>and sexual affairs are part of private life, and definitely not a thing
>>Sexual affairs with White House interns barely out of college cross
>>a line between "consensual affairs" and exploitation. Sexual harassment
> It all depends on your view of women as moral agents.
> Now if you would like to advocate a more military view
> of what sexual misconduct (vs harassment) in the general
> case then say so.
> Even so, it's still the alleged victims call.
The use of a power relationship is the key issue wrt the propriety of
Mr. Clinton's behavior. He was her boss, which changes things.
>>is not legal. The use of a power relationship to secure sexual favors
>>does seem to fall into the "harassment" category, and is at very least
>>distasteful.
>>>of a public hearing. The fact that B.C. still has a functional c*ck
>>>doesn't mean he's immorale; the fact that the american society cares
>>Are cover-ups "immoral"? The liberals seem to feel that Mr. Nixon's
>>cover-up was worthy of impeachment proceedings.
> Hmmm... lesse: breaking an entering and campaign expionage vs.
> a affair...
> Give us a break.
Nixon was burned for the cover-up, not the acts themselves. If Mr. Clinton
was held liable for the misconduct of his underlings, he would have been
gone years ago. Starr has obtained several convictions already, IIRC.
>>>more about a supposed bed story of their president than of anything else
>>>shows how bigot and bimoral this society is. After all, he's not elected
>>>as pope, although the pope has two morals, too (human rights, rigth to
>>>freely believe - good for others, bad for his followers: priests can't
>>>marry, females can't become priests, and the archives of inquisition
>>>opened just recently - as an example about what's definitly the contrary
>>>to the right to freely believe).
>>Does this mean that it's okay to tell the girl to lie under oath to
>>cover up the affair? That's the real issue here.
> You sure put a lot of faith in hearsay...
This was more a discussion of the charges than the facts.
Jay Martin
Is it just me or do these situations just seem almost
identical. Like unruly children, both seem to push things
to the limit until the powers that be have to threaten to
bash them or be forced to actually do it. They
both seem to pull transparient in your face idiocy and
lies "Sure we provide will provide the two products
separately, they just won't work" and "Sure you
can inspect our weapons facilities as long as they are
not classified as secret". Both seem to pronounce
their manifest rights over and over, "Kuwait is the property
of Iraq" and "it is our right to innovate our products
(which is this case just means maintain monopolistic
control over the industry)".
Basically, both are pretty much defiant entities giving
respectively, the US Justice and State Departments headaches.
Jay
Kevin and Brian Stone
Jay Martin (jaymm...@earthlink.net) wrote:
(snip)
: Basically, both are pretty much defiant entities giving
: respectively, the US Justice and State Departments headaches.
: Jay
Now all that needs to happen is for Hussein to be accused of unfairly
treating his temporary employees and the link will be complete!
-Kevin Stone
Stone Entertainment
www.StoneEntertainment.com
Nathan Hughes
On or about 28 Jan 1998 19:37:31 GMT, in comp.sys.mac.advocacy
ja...@jhste1.dyn.ml.org (Jason S.) exclaimed :
<s>
>>>Does this mean that it's okay to tell the girl to lie under oath to
>>>cover up the affair? That's the real issue here.
>
>> You sure put a lot of faith in hearsay...
>
>This was more a discussion of the charges than the facts.
>
I cannot believe you guys have missed what is really going on with
this Clinto/luzenski(whatever)-oral sex,-lie-in-court thing (AKA
"fornigate"). I am especially ashamed at you anit-M$ guys because you
usually pick up on this stuff.
The truth is, the luzenski chick was hired by Bill Gates to make these
allegations just so Janet Reno would quit calling him at all hours of
the night inquiring about his "bundling" practices. In addition, this
is Chairman Gates' way of getting even with the federal Government
from the top down. You go, Bill!!
Ok, there's the rumor, lets see if we can get it on the Tom Brokaw
show.
Nathan A. Hughes
MFA Candidate
The University Theatre KU
http://sunflower.com/~nhughes
multi1=20sec, multi2=50sec
Time to Start Thinking Quad Slot 2 400s. Do the math.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________-_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
Aaron R Kulkis
> >
> >>> In Billy G's response to the Federal Judge's order and Billy C's
> >>> response to his latest sexual crisis, we see examples of logical
> >>> endpoints for moral relativism.
> >
> >>Well, this witch hunting case "Billy C." isn't something you'd call
> >
> >Witch hunting? Was Bob Packwood the victim of a witch hunt?
> >
> >>"moral relativism". Even a president has the right for a private life,
> >>and sexual affairs are part of private life, and definitely not a thing
> >
> >Sexual affairs with White House interns barely out of college cross
> >a line between "consensual affairs" and exploitation. Sexual harassment
>
> It all depends on your view of women as moral agents.
> Now if you would like to advocate a more military view
> of what sexual misconduct (vs harassment) in the general
> case then say so.
>
> Even so, it's still the alleged victims call.
Not always...when I was serving in Saudi Arabia, my OIC (officer in
charge
for the section) was doing our clerk-typist. She wasn't complaining,
he wasn't complaining...nevertheless, she got busted 2 grades of rank,
and he got sent home on his ass by the commanding general.
Why? Because the rules are:
1) No fraternization between officers and enlisted
2) No fraternization between a superior and a subordinate
(i.e. where one ultimately reports to the other).
There is good reason for this--it prevents arm-twisting, abuse of power,
etc....why? Well, what if the more powerful one says "you better NOT
complain, or else you're be in REALLY hot water..."...so, to keep
that possibility from happening, senior don't do subordinates within
their own command. Period.
There are *valid* reasons for having these rules in our society...
>
> >is not legal. The use of a power relationship to secure sexual favors
> >does seem to fall into the "harassment" category, and is at very least
> >distasteful.
> >
> >>of a public hearing. The fact that B.C. still has a functional c*ck
> >>doesn't mean he's immorale; the fact that the american society cares
> >
> >Are cover-ups "immoral"? The liberals seem to feel that Mr. Nixon's
> >cover-up was worthy of impeachment proceedings.
>
> Hmmm... lesse: breaking an entering and campaign expionage vs.
> a affair...
> Give us a break.
>
> >
> >>more about a supposed bed story of their president than of anything else
> >>shows how bigot and bimoral this society is. After all, he's not elected
> >>as pope, although the pope has two morals, too (human rights, rigth to
> >>freely believe - good for others, bad for his followers: priests can't
> >>marry, females can't become priests, and the archives of inquisition
> >>opened just recently - as an example about what's definitly the contrary
> >>to the right to freely believe).
> >
> >Does this mean that it's okay to tell the girl to lie under oath to
> >cover up the affair? That's the real issue here.
>
> You sure put a lot of faith in hearsay...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Administrator
Chris
I'm forwarding this on behalf of a friend. I don't know what it means, but he
told me to pass it along, so here you go . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send an mail telling him that he completely and negligently forgot to
mention the "Dolchstosslegende" which was really kicked in after the
activities of Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht. (they were jewish
communists who after the war tried to set up a communist republic, and
totally underestimated the nationalistic fevor in the country). Tell me
what he says.
Robert Nicholson
Unlike the UN the differrence is that the DOJ actually has the balls to do
something about the situation. The parallels are that Sadam is making fools
of the UN like MSFT is doing to Jackson. I hope that the UN pulverizes Sadam
and I'd definately like to see a DOJ parallel.
Michael J. Stango
In article <6ao6fs$l56$1...@enet1.enetis.net>, st...@enetis.net (Kevin and
Brian Stone) wrote:
>Jay Martin (jaymm...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>(snip)
>: Basically, both are pretty much defiant entities giving
>: respectively, the US Justice and State Departments headaches.
>: Jay
>
>Now all that needs to happen is for Hussein to be accused of unfairly
>treating his temporary employees and the link will be complete!
Well, didn't he gas some of his own countrymen several years back? That
seems like unfair treatment to me.
~Philly
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Michael J. Stango -known as 'mjstango' at his ISP, 'worldnet.att.net'
"Windows 95: n.
32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an
8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor,
written by a 2-bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition."
-- Author unknown
No Spam
flm...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> In <Yqzh521VLZKl-p...@slip129-37-242-216.ca.us.ibm.net>, osb...@deletemeibm.net (Bob O) writes:
For Pete's sake, go back and sort through Sun's press releases for the
last year and see how much crap they were 'lying' about. How much of the
stuff they promised we'd all be seeing from Java has actually
materialized?
Business *is* about posturing. So is buying a car and selling a house.
Learn it or be taken advantage of. Let me guess, you *do* get your new
cars undercoated...
-Matt
No Spam
Bob O wrote:
> Now the new face of regulation seems to be focused on mandating of access.
> Telephone companies must allow competitors into its system. Their profits
> are being deeply regulated. One easy way to help ensure access would be
> to mandate the release of all platform source code on products that
> represent major crossroads.
[Oh, boy, another pet cause for Bob O]. Are you going to start beating
the 'source code for every man' drum now that your favorite charity case
has decided to release the source code for their new freeware?
The day Sun, Cisco, Sprint and Northern Telecom release their source
code and/or routing algorithms for all their 'crossroad' products is the
same day the earth will fly off its axis into the sun.
Like it or not, Bob, most of the world is here to make money. Lots of
money. This idea that we should all hold hands, look at each others
code, agree Java is the be-all-end-all solution, and co-develop an
office suite so that MS goes broke is...silly.
-Matt
JEDI
On 28 Jan 1998 19:37:31 GMT, Jason S. <ja...@jhste1.dyn.ml.org> wrote:
>In article <6amvs8$b...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, JEDI wrote:
>
>>>>> In Billy G's response to the Federal Judge's order and Billy C's
>>>>> response to his latest sexual crisis, we see examples of logical
>>>>> endpoints for moral relativism.
>
>>>>Well, this witch hunting case "Billy C." isn't something you'd call
>
>>>Witch hunting? Was Bob Packwood the victim of a witch hunt?
>
>>>>"moral relativism". Even a president has the right for a private life,
>>>>and sexual affairs are part of private life, and definitely not a thing
>
>>>Sexual affairs with White House interns barely out of college cross
>>>a line between "consensual affairs" and exploitation. Sexual harassment
>
>> It all depends on your view of women as moral agents.
>> Now if you would like to advocate a more military view
>> of what sexual misconduct (vs harassment) in the general
>> case then say so.
>
>> Even so, it's still the alleged victims call.
>
>Mr. Clinton's behavior. He was her boss, which changes things.
That is only presumed. Furthermore that's a presumption
that is directly counter to the usual null hypothesis
regarding an accused.
>
>>>is not legal. The use of a power relationship to secure sexual favors
>>>does seem to fall into the "harassment" category, and is at very least
>>>distasteful.
>
>>>>of a public hearing. The fact that B.C. still has a functional c*ck
>>>>doesn't mean he's immorale; the fact that the american society cares
>
>>>Are cover-ups "immoral"? The liberals seem to feel that Mr. Nixon's
>>>cover-up was worthy of impeachment proceedings.
>
>> Hmmm... lesse: breaking an entering and campaign expionage vs.
>> a affair...
>> Give us a break.
>
>Nixon was burned for the cover-up, not the acts themselves. If Mr. Clinton
Precisely. The matter that nixon covered up was orders of magnitude
more grave. It was matter of real effect and less controversially
criminal. Sexual indescretions, or their coverups are quite trivial
in comparison.
Phil Brewster
Hi Chris, I guess the one who forgot to mention the 'Dolchstosslegende'
would have been me, so here's my response (off-topic though it may be for
these NGs....):
First, to clarify what is meant by the German phrase, it refers to the
notion that German soldiers fighting in World War I were 'stabbed in the
back' on the home front by [fill in the blank: capitalists, communists,
Jews, pacifists, etc.], and that this [fill in the blank: weakening of
national resolve, loss of the will to win, outright treason, etc.] is why
Germany lost the war in 1917-18, through no fault of its own (and
ironically, through no fault of the American and European allies who won
the war against Germany on the battlefield, the reality of which
mysteriously evaporates in the 'Dolchstosslegende'....).
So much for the 'Dolchstoss' part (signifying the thrust of a cowardly
assassin's dagger at an innocent and unsuspecting victim); the 'Legende'
part can be more quickly translated. It means 'myth'. Whether this refers
to the legend of the heroic German Siegfried (who died by being stabbed in
the one vulnerable part of his back by the dwarf Albericht who had
discovered the hero's secret weak spot....) or whether it refers to the
fact that the 'Dolchstoss' was a rather obvious political rationalization
to explain away Germany's equally obvious military losses in World War I,
depends on one's historical perspective, I suppose, but I tend towards the
latter view.
In the 1920s, the 'Dolchstosslegende' was part and parcel of German
nationalist and right-wing political belief or ideology, particularly among
ex-soldiers unwilling to admit defeat to themselves after the war. The
notion that Germany was 'stabbed in the back' did not originate with Hitler
and the Nazis, but it was echoed and used by them during their political
campaigns in the later years of the Weimar Republic to drum up support
among other right-wing nationalists, etc. The subject of numerous jokes,
Hitler liked to present himself as a 'comrade', a 'common German soldier in
the trenches' during World War I, though it is somewhat dubious as to how
much active duty he actually saw while serving as a corporal in the
drummers' corps behind the front lines.....
Unless I am mistaken, the objection that I left out the 'Dolchstosslegende'
is directed against my claim that propaganda and mind control were
secondary factors in the Nazi rise to power. The point is well-taken, yet
my perspective on these events is still that the Nazis did not gain many
outside converts by these means. What they _were_ able to do, was to unite
the numerous right-wing splinter groups who already believed the 'Legende'
in one form or another, during the early years of recruiting the
'hard-core' members of the Nazi party and its activist component: namely
the SA troops who would go marching through the streets on head-bashing
jaunts, violently disrupting Left-wing demonstrations, etc., in the final
years of the Weimar Republic. The 'Dolchstosslegende' was pretty much a
case of 'preaching to the choir' on the political (Far) Right, in other
words, for which Hitler and the Nazis increasingly served as a catalyst and
a unifying force.
My primary focus in the previous post was on the first years of the Third
Reich, yet if I were going to bore everybody with a full-fledged historical
analysis of German fascism the period between 1918 and 1933 is certainly
crucial in explaining how later events unravelled. Basically, the political
center collapsed during the Weimar years, and the extremes gained momentum
on both the Right and the Left, burying one of Germany's rare attempts to
institutionalize forms of parliamentary democracy throughout its entire
history, in the process. The majority's response to Hitler's takeover in
1933 was fundamentally apolitical, in my view, more along the lines of
'<*yawn*> who's claiming to save Germany this month? Oh I dunno, some guy
named Hitler....', rather than the mass enthusiasm and eagerness to join in
the movement that one sees depicted after the fact in propaganda films such
as "Triumph of the Will" (1935). Nazism was not a 'mass movement' in the
years preceding Hitler's takeover, IOW; their share of seats in parliament
never exceeded 10%, IIRC, which is of course one of the reasons why they
burned it down in 1933 (just kidding....).
So I'm not entirely clear what the poster in absentia means by 'the
nationalistic fervor [fever?] in the country', particularly if it's
referring to the period around 1918-19 in the immediate aftermath of the
war..... In this context, I will simply point out that many of the German
soldiers returning from the front became German revolutionaries seeking to
abolish the monarchy that had started the war and to establish a modern
republic: The experience of the war created as many German leftist radicals
as it did nationalist radicals, in other words. One of the dimensions that
constitute the 'Dolchstoss' as a political myth in the critical sense, was
the notion that such 'corrupting influences' as the German revolutions of
1918-19 came from 'outside' and that Germany itself remained innocent and
pure. The Treaty of Versailles became a component of the myth as well,
e.g., that 'outside forces' had illegitimately usurped control of Germany's
destiny, etc. Anti-semitic images of 'the Jew' as the one who controls
everything behind the scenes were then inserted into the mysterious gaps
left in this ideological account by the dark references to 'outside
forces', as the pseudo-explanation for all of pure, innocent Germany's woes
among those who believed in the 'Legende'. (Thus, US President Woodrow
Wilson received the epithet 'Jew' more than once in German nationalist
diatribes about the Treaty of Versailles, IIRC, even though he wasn't
actually Jewish; same with FDR later on, in some of Goebbels' wartime
speeches, etc. ....)
Luxemburg and Liebknecht led one of the extreme leftist factions after the
war (called 'Spartacus'), but as anti-nationalists, they were by no means
alone. Their attempt to push the Weimar republic (founded a year earlier)
further to the left failed in the political arena because the republic
itself intervened with its newly established police and military forces to
put a stop to it. As individuals, however, it is true that they were both
assassinated by right-wing activists acting alone, which charted the course
for the rest of the Weimar years, in a way, once the republican center of
the political spectrum fell apart, with Nazis and Communists fighting in
the streets a decade later (the worldwide economic Depression of 1929
triggered much of the political chaos and uncertainty in the years leading
up to the Reich: one of Hitler's more pragmatic appeals to the masses at
the time was the promise of full employment in a 'nation of farmers and
workers' -- a more effective appeal than most of the Nazi political
mythology surrounding it, at any rate....).
If the implication in the absentee poster's comments above was that the
cases of Luxemburg and Liebknecht somehow lent credibility to the
'Dolchstosslegende' among the German masses, then I must disagree: The war
had been over for almost two years when the 'Spartacus revolt' took place
in 1919, so how could this event have precipitated the end of the war and
Germany's surrender in 1917 in the mind of anyone with an ounce of
sense?..... OTOH, I'm sure those who already believed the 'Legende' on the
extreme Right managed to work all this in somehow at the time and make it
seem like part of an overall 'anti-German conspiracy' or whatever, but then
again, conspiracy theories such as the 'Dolchstoss' tend to operate that
way, no matter how little substance there is to them: again, this sort of
thing functions as a political myth -- yet how many among the German
majority actually believed it?..... We'll never know for sure, of course,
but I tend towards the view that most Germans were not Nazis at heart and
that Germany was in effect 'occupied' in 1933, by force. Perhaps this is an
overly idealistic view, considering the number who _did_ toe the line
and/or actively support the regime after 1933, yet mass psychology is an
inexact science and always will be, so I hesitate to generalize......
OK, somebody stop me now, before I start reconstructing all of German
history from the era of the Teutonic hordes up to the present..... ;-)
Dean Z. Douthat
Phil Brewster (pjb...@nospam.com) wrote:
<snip>
: sense?..... OTOH, I'm sure those who already believed the 'Legende' on the
: extreme Right managed to work all this in somehow at the time and make it
: seem like part of an overall 'anti-German conspiracy' or whatever, but then
: again, conspiracy theories such as the 'Dolchstoss' tend to operate that
: way, no matter how little substance there is to them: again, this sort of
As George Will commented: "To conspiracy theorists, the strongest
evidence for a conspiracy's existence is the total lack of such
evidence." :-)
Aaron R Kulkis
Maybe we could send the DOJ after Hussein, and let the a combined
arms taskforce take care of Microsoft (Redmond is so close to the
bay that even the "gunboat" navy could get involved, not just
the Marines...)
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Administrator
Ford Motor Company
-and-
Communications Chief
D Co/1-125th Infantry...
Yarek J. Kowalik
No Spam wrote:
>
> [Oh, boy, another pet cause for Bob O]. Are you going to start beating
> the 'source code for every man' drum now that your favorite charity case
> has decided to release the source code for their new freeware?
>
> The day Sun, Cisco, Sprint and Northern Telecom release their source
> code and/or routing algorithms for all their 'crossroad' products is the
> same day the earth will fly off its axis into the sun.
>
> Like it or not, Bob, most of the world is here to make money. Lots of
> money. This idea that we should all hold hands, look at each others
> code, agree Java is the be-all-end-all solution, and co-develop an
> office suite so that MS goes broke is...silly.
>
> -Matt
I think Matt is right: the money motivation is the most important factor
why many entrepreneurs attempt to build and sell new software products.
This is true about most of the enterprises in the capitalist world.
Don't forget the lessons learned from the Communist countries: the lack
of prospect of financial profit has led most of their economies down the
tubes. No incentives to work hard, no incentives to invent.
If that ever happens to software development, you can probably kiss your
job goodbye, and be forced to look for another line of work that pays
your bills. There will be no more talk about who's got better software.
As long as the money is the principal motivation, you will always have
software that only does good enough job. The standard for "good enough"
software changes and mutates all the time: it could mean "easier to use
to uninitiated / novice user with some bugs accepted" and it will
probably never mean the ideal "thy software shall never crash and always
be correct". It is very fluid, dynamic, and only a handful of people can
truly grasp it, some of the time.
It is rather pointless for us to waste our energy on the ideal, since
the smart entrepreneur will do "well enough" or "just a notch higher"
than the competition *IF* it gives him an advantage, and that is NOT
always the case. And we will always hate such a person, precisely
because they have made lots of money with the less than ideal product. I
dare say: so what if you are upset about that? WHO CARES? It will be
(s)he who will dictate the course of future software market and not
you, and NOT because they have necessarily better ideas, but because
they have clout... sounds like politics, n'est pas?, and it is.
It is better for us to concentrate our energy on figuring out what is
the next step in the "good enough" ladder, and hopefully lay solid
enough foundation to be able to develop software that meets the "good
enough" standard in the future without too much pain. Wasting your time
on the ideal is pointless, because as technology evolves so does the
ideal. Its a moving target. The incremental approach used by the smart
entrepreneurs is far better to use in the long run, because it will
always be pointing more correctly toward the current ideal, then the
stale, old ideal made irrelevant by advancing technology.
I must observe here that in my opinion the current "good enough"
standard does contain a rather large component of high standard for
software robustness. This is why we are having this exchange at all, and
lots of other people are so compelled to argue about it. Whether or not
Java, or Linux, or open and free software is the solution, or even
relevant to that problem is hard to determine. But the high expected
robustness is not the only component. And the current standard will
change too.
Observe the history of the Macintosh, that was always much closer to the
ideal than Windows... I dare to say that Windows managed to outmanoeuvre
Macintosh precisely because Microsoft is much more focused on what the
market needs.
Yarek J. Kowalik <j...@klg.com>
flm...@ibm.net
In <34D0D7...@spam.com>, No Spam <N...@spam.com> writes:
flm...@ibm.net wrote:
Bill Gates is a bridge player. Bridge is a game where you are encouraged to
make false statments in order to fool the competition. But in business, to be
a really good lier over time you need to hide your own motives for telling a lie
and your competence level. Optimally, you should find someone whom you
could credible blame for the falsehood if caught. The gains from lying in business
will be diminished over the long run, because there is no one left to fool.
>
>For Pete's sake, go back and sort through Sun's press releases for the
>last year and see how much crap they were 'lying' about. How much of the
>stuff they promised we'd all be seeing from Java has actually
>materialized?
>
>Business *is* about posturing. So is buying a car and selling a house.
>Learn it or be taken advantage of. Let me guess, you *do* get your new
>cars undercoated...
>
>-Matt
Advertising and advocating is about posturing. Business is about creating
a predictable future. Lying, maniputlating, persuading, marketing,
managing, call it anything you like but recognize that Bill Gates
has nothing to gain from anything but honesty at this point in the game.
Sun, well we will know more from the Breach of Java Contract suit --
scheduled for next month. It looks at this point that Microsoft executives
lied but that is for the judge to decide. I suppose there is a small chance
that Sun lied but after reading the contract and reviewing both Sun's
and Microsoft's posts regarding it I think not.
http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/lslunch.htm
has information on a book related to the above
Chuck Adams
>Java is a far better design because it allows for diversity where
>uniformity is not necessary.
Java has a single VM specification, and as such, could find itself vulnerable
to being locked into that spec. Java's philosophy of Write Once Run Anywhere
is admirable, but it's being taken to mean *Compile* Once Run Anywhere
Anytime. You could see the JVM becoming as crusty as the x86 if that attitude
continues.
Java's a neat API standard, but so's POSIX, and that hasn't been a silver
bullet.
Chuck Adams
>Good observation. Also, the Hitler Youth movement was a primary source of
>new recruits. It is a well known fact that young people are more
>impressionable, so when you create of mix of ambitious and ruthless
>experience players with a huge youth movement, you are developing a very
>scary culture. I don't like using the Nazi analogy with Microsoft in that
>I in no way consider them anything like the sort of evil threat that the
>Nazis turned out to be. However, I do have real concern about general
..
Bill Gates has not sent one person to the ovens.
Godwin's Law.
OVER.