Comments on Microsoft Open Source document
Matthew D. Pitts
major performance category (networking, disk I/O, process ctx switch, etc.).
To grow their featurebase, Linux has also liberally stolen features of other
UNIX's (shell features, file systems, graphics, CPU ports)"
This quote, taken from
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/halloween.html
is most disturbing, mostly because it's not true. It has made me decide to
remove all Microsoft product from this particular computer as soon as
possible. It is unfortunate that Microsoft has decided to follow this kind
of path.
Matthew D. Pitts
N8OHU
n8...@qsl.net
mpi...@suite224.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Dave DeMaagd
> major performance category (networking, disk I/O, process ctx switch, etc.).
> To grow their featurebase, Linux has also liberally stolen features of other
> UNIX's (shell features, file systems, graphics, CPU ports)"
>
> This quote, taken from
>
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/halloween.html
>
> is most disturbing, mostly because it's not true. It has made me decide to
> remove all Microsoft product from this particular computer as soon as
> possible. It is unfortunate that Microsoft has decided to follow this kind
> of path.
>
necessarily have to be innovative. Innovation is good, but if you can
take a feature that someone else has, and do it better than them, that
that is really great. That is why Linux is being noticed. It does things
that other OSs do, and tries (and often succedes) to do them better.
We can compare, feature for feature, and have a good ground for saying
_why_ and _how_ linux is better. It's a lot easier to talk to a boss and
say 'Linux does blahblahblah better, with greater stability/uptime', than
it is to say 'Linux is better because it is not MS or it's open source.'
OTOH, it's not like MS has never taken/bought/stolen/squashed an idea from
anyone else, either...
Dave DeMaagd - dem...@slashdot.org - www.cs.hope.edu/~demaagd
Ow, WOW heavy! My lentil binary trees are growing exponentially. (Neil)
SysAdmin/Programmer - TheImageGroup - ===|:=P~~~~
Johan Myreen
>> To grow their featurebase, Linux has also liberally stolen features of other
>> UNIX's (shell features, file systems, graphics, CPU ports)"
>> This quote, taken from
>> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/halloween.html
>> is most disturbing, mostly because it's not true. It has made me decide to
>What is so not true about that???
I think the statement has some truth in it, but the examples are
bad. First of all, Linux the *kernel* has not stolen any shell
features, because the shell has nothing to do with the kernel.
On the other hand, the "GNU/Linux System" (if you take that
point of view) has not stolen many shell features either. To my
knowledge, innovative shells like tcsh, zsh, bash have lived a
life of their own, and have not been tied to any particular
operating system.
"CPU ports"??? Microsoft has ported NT to a variety of
processors, so I guess Microsoft themselves have stolen the idea
of porting an operating system to different processors. (Maybe I
have misunderstood the author completely here?)
File systems. The Ext2 file system clearly incorporates a number
of design ideas from traditional Unix file systems, but I
think the document author refers to the various file systems
included for compatibility with other systems, like SYSV, HFS
and NTFS. I suspect the author has not realized the difference
between a "native" file system, and the file systems included
for compatibilty, like everybody would be using Microsoft's
own superb NTFS on their root partition. Quick, where's the
mkntfs command for Linux?
Graphics. Well, I guess "Linux has stolen grapics code from
other Unix systems" is one way of saying that Linux is able to
run the X11 Window System. Though I must say I find this point
of view a bit twisted.
Johan Myreen
j...@iki.fi
Chip Salzenberg
> Graphics. Well, I guess "Linux has stolen grapics code from
> other Unix systems" is one way of saying that Linux is able to
> run the X11 Window System. Though I must say I find this point
> of view a bit twisted.
It's that fundamental orientation toward ownership, control, and
sales.
Consider: If MS were to distribute with Windows something that was
created by some other commercial software company, without
compensation to the creators, that *would* constitute theft.
And since MS can so easily buy the creators of cool things, it's come
to equate ownership with permission to redistribute.
But this is probably far enough afield of the Kernel list that we
should just drop it.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <ch...@perlsupport.com>
"There -- we made them swerve slightly!" //MST3K
Tim Smith
> What is so not true about that??? For something to be good, it does not
> necessarily have to be innovative. Innovation is good, but if you can
> take a feature that someone else has, and do it better than them, that
> that is really great. That is why Linux is being noticed. It does things
> that other OSs do, and tries (and often succedes) to do them better.
Exactly. Linux is good because it is an excellent implementation of an
already proven set of ideas. There isn't a lot in it, from a programming
point of view, that is innovative. If you want innovative, run Hurd, or
some research OS. If you want something *useful*, run Linux.
My guess is that when they are writing the textbooks 50 years from now,
Linux will be mentioned much more in the business textbooks than in the
computer science textbooks, and Linus will be more remembered as a genius
of management and organization than as a programmer. Sure, he's a great
programmer, but there are plenty of equally good programmers around.
There are very few people who can manage a successful project the size of
Linux, even without the handicap of the people working on it being
distributed all over the planet and communicating via a flakey network.
--Tim Smith
Horst von Brand
> On Wed, 04 Nov 1998, Dave DeMaagd wrote:
> >> To grow their featurebase, Linux has also liberally stolen features of
> >> other UNIX's (shell features, file systems, graphics, CPU ports)"
> >> This quote, taken from http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/halloween.html is
> >> most disturbing, mostly because it's not true. It has made me decide
> >> to
> >What is so not true about that???
> I think the statement has some truth in it, but the examples are
> bad. First of all, Linux the *kernel* has not stolen any shell
> features, because the shell has nothing to do with the kernel.
> On the other hand, the "GNU/Linux System" (if you take that
> point of view) has not stolen many shell features either. To my
> knowledge, innovative shells like tcsh, zsh, bash have lived a
> life of their own, and have not been tied to any particular
> operating system.
MS sees "operating system" as the whole mess, it would seem. No portability
in sight...
Anyway, much more disturbing is the idea of "extending" the "too simple"
IETF protocols, and hinting at adding enough complexity and options that
"others" will have a hard time selecting what to implement first, and how.
If you look at the backwaters of the 'net (like around here), things don't
work so great because sysadmins of even larger corporations and mayor ISPs
around here don't get the basics straight... now think about what will
happen if the "wounderfully extended" protocols become the norm. the IETF
has an interesting enough life as is getting the "too simple" protocols to
work sanely, hardware/software providers and sysadmins have a hard time
understanding, implementing and exploiting the "too simple" stuff today.
I.e., imagine MS-mess but on Internet scale, not just desktop-scale. If you
can.
Scary. Real scary. Halloween stuff, definitely.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonb...@inf.utfsm.cl
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
je...@pinguin.conetix.de
> "Linux = Best of Breed UNIX. Linux outperforms many other UNIX's in most
> major performance category (networking, disk I/O, process ctx switch, etc.).
> To grow their featurebase, Linux has also liberally stolen features of other
> UNIX's (shell features, file systems, graphics, CPU ports)"
so what? a) they did the same to 'us' b) no-one claimed any copyrights.
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/halloween.html
> is most disturbing, mostly because it's not true. It has made me decide to
What did you expect? MS is realizing what kind of a threat Linux is
becoming, and they are starting to FUD us. Standard strategy.
The trouble with Linux is that you really cannot attack anyone. Someone
quoting ZD (or was it PC Week?) once said "Attacking the Linux community is
rather like attacking Mother Theresa." Which is, after all, kind of true. :)
> remove all Microsoft product from this particular computer as soon as
> possible. It is unfortunate that Microsoft has decided to follow this kind
> of path.
It isn't the first time. The trouble is that this is a completely new kind
of competition for Microsoft, which they (I hope) won't be able to cope with
in the long term.
a) There is no company to buy out
b) There is no-one to sue
c) There are no applications to refuse to port - Linux already has most
of what it needs, growing
d) FUD will be difficult, because there are no secrets
But, it certainly won't be the last time Microsoft has started to FUD
someone. I really HOPE they will hit the wall hard this time.
--
_ciao, Jens_______________________________http://www.pinguin.conetix.de_
cat /dev/boiler/water | tea | sieve > /cup
mount -t hdev /dev/human/mouth01 /mouth ; cat /cup >/mouth/gulp
C S Hendrix
In message <Pine.LNX.3.96.981105...@ps.cus.umist.ac.uk>, Riley
Williams writes:
> > anybody received an attachment from MS-Outlook recently? you need
> > Outlook to extract the files - even Outlook Express cannot cope!
>
> I have a simple solution to this - if somebody sends me an attachment
> that I can't extract, I send them a message saying so and advising
> them to send it in a format that I can extract. As far as I'm
> concerned, the onus is on the SENDER to ensure the recipient can use
> what they're attaching, not on the recipient to waste time doing other
> people's jobs for them...
The problem is that when you are in the minority, you are faced with
this more and more to the point where its useless to do anything.
I have faced that at work. Eventually, I just did not have time
to ask for other formats AND explain what that meant to people who
had no clue. This in a company of 200 people.
Now picture the same thing among the millions on the net. Aieeee!
Microsoft is counting on. Most of the people you complain to are
not even likely to understand what you are saying. Dumbing down
users has this effect, and its to Microsoft's advantage.
Of course, I have high hopes a lot of things like this will backfire.
--
csh - shen...@widomaker.com - Dilbert is one of my coworkers...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands
a chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel
christophe leroy
> To: linux-ker...@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: linux-kernel-digest V1 #2793
> Reply-to: linux-...@vger.rutgers.edu
> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:19:35 -0500
> On 05-Nov-98 Riley Williams wrote:
> > I have a simple solution to this - if somebody sends me an attachment
> > that I can't extract, I send them a message saying so and advising
> > them to send it in a format that I can extract. As far as I'm
> > concerned, the onus is on the SENDER to ensure the recipient can use
> > what they're attaching, not on the recipient to waste time doing other
> > people's jobs for them...
> yeah
> like i'm going to tell a potential costomer (one that i've been chasing for
> MONTHS) and who finally sends me the spec that i've been practically been begging
> him to - i'm going to tell him to get a better mailer and send it again
> right!
> what i did do was extract it with outlook (once i'd configured it and got pop3d to
> work and ...) and THEN sent him email telling him to get a better mailer :-)
>
> resistance is futile - you *have* been assimilated
I agree. It's up to the receiver to be able to read what he receives.
That is also Sun's opinion, as Sun Solaris Openwindows Mailtool
is able to receive MIME-encoded and UUENCODED files but can
only send UUENCODED files.
And it's often easier to read everything than write every langage.
I can read American and English, but When I write, I write english
(I understand words colour and color, but write color).
I can read German, but I can't write.
christophe leroy
Lauri Tischler
>
>
> Just standard US SUPER-EGOISM. You could have russian text in HTML/WP/WORD.
> You CAN NOT and NEVER will be able to send russian text as ASCII text.
>
> E M A I L I S N O T A S C I I ! ! ! !
>
> I prefer HTML here (it's by far better defined format) or one of text/plain
> variants (there are quite a few: "text/plain; charset=KOI8-R",
> "text/plain; charset=windows-1251", "text/plain; charset=ibm866", etc, etc)
> since I have enough tools to read [almost] all variations of "text/plain"
> with ability to carry russian text. But I simple could not get email from
> A LOT OF my friends in ASCII...
Please, don't mix charactersets and formats.
ascii, koi, isoxxx and such are character sets and therefore acceptable
html, wp, word are formats and NOT acceptable
Khimenko Victor
LT> Khimenko Victor wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just standard US SUPER-EGOISM. You could have russian text in HTML/WP/WORD.
>> You CAN NOT and NEVER will be able to send russian text as ASCII text.
>>
>> E M A I L I S N O T A S C I I ! ! ! !
>>
>> I prefer HTML here (it's by far better defined format) or one of text/plain
>> variants (there are quite a few: "text/plain; charset=KOI8-R",
>> "text/plain; charset=windows-1251", "text/plain; charset=ibm866", etc, etc)
>> since I have enough tools to read [almost] all variations of "text/plain"
>> with ability to carry russian text. But I simple could not get email from
>> A LOT OF my friends in ASCII...
LT> Please, don't mix charactersets and formats.
LT> ascii, koi, isoxxx and such are character sets and therefore acceptable
LT> html, wp, word are formats and NOT acceptable
Do not oversimplify problem ! For english and russian it's acceptable but for
example Hebrew uses right-to-left direction and there are quite a few other
languages where you could not type text in ANY charset with default layout
(for Hebrew it's hard but possible). No, it's NOT enough to have text/plain
for e-mail exchange. It's better to use the most simple format if possible, of
course :-))
Riley Williams
>> I know what you mean about SO5 - it's particularly unstable here
>> (it likes to die and take the entire X server with it. The only
>> recovery for me is the reset button :-()
> Thats a bug in some versions of the S3 virge server, use XF86_SVGA
> with the virge instead
Care to tell more?
I have an S3-ViRGE/DX graphics card with 4M of RAM, and the SVGA
driver disnae produce a stable display on my monitor with it (the
display slowly scrolls from top right to bottom left, an extremely
disconcerting action), so I'm not willing to change over as a result.
However, if there's a bug, I wanna know about it...
Best wishes from Riley.
Alan Cox
> driver disnae produce a stable display on my monitor with it (the
> display slowly scrolls from top right to bottom left, an extremely
Thats something different. The specific case of 'star office 5 cases otherwise
solid Xserver to hang on S3 virge' is an X server bug
Alan
Andrej Presern
>On Wed, Nov 04, 1998 at 04:04:58PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
>
>> Anyway, much more disturbing is the idea of "extending" the "too simple"
>> IETF protocols, and hinting at adding enough complexity and options that
>> "others" will have a hard time selecting what to implement first, and how.
>> If you look at the backwaters of the 'net (like around here), things don't
>> work so great because sysadmins of even larger corporations and mayor ISPs
>> around here don't get the basics straight... now think about what will
>> happen if the "wounderfully extended" protocols become the norm. the IETF
>> has an interesting enough life as is getting the "too simple" protocols to
>> work sanely, hardware/software providers and sysadmins have a hard time
>> understanding, implementing and exploiting the "too simple" stuff today.
>> I.e., imagine MS-mess but on Internet scale, not just desktop-scale. If you
>> can.
>>
>> Scary. Real scary. Halloween stuff, definitely.
>
>use M$ proprietary extensions.
Well, stating its intentions in a document such as the above seems like enough
of an evidence to prove Microsoft's possible monopolisation attempts in the
future (and explain those in the past). As far as the document can be read, it
seems like a 'probe' to see how the world will react to such outrageous
arrogance and evaluate possible action in the outlined directions. [*]
Protocols can be viewed as languages computers worldwide use to communicate.
One who controls languages, controls the information and the communicating
parties. Changing international protocols with intent to monopolize them
('because they are too simple'???) could be seen as not only an attempt to
bring down one (and all) economic competitor(s) but to bring down the whole
world!
Is this whole planet going completely insane or is somebody finaly going to
put a stop to Microsoft completely?
Andrej
[*] As far as I can tell, the reaction so far has been something along the
lines of seeing a banana peel on the pavement and thinking 'shit, I'm going to
fall again - better prepare my medic'..
--
Andrej Presern, and...@luz.fe.uni-lj.si p...@luz.fe.uni-lj.si
Harald Koenig
> > I have an S3-ViRGE/DX graphics card with 4M of RAM, and the SVGA
> > driver disnae produce a stable display on my monitor with it (the
> > display slowly scrolls from top right to bottom left, an extremely
>
> Thats something different. The specific case of 'star office 5 cases otherwise
> solid Xserver to hang on S3 virge' is an X server bug
Care to tell more?
I've never seen any bug/problem report to XFree86 talking about problems
of SO 5 in combination with S3 ViRGE. I really wonder if this is
just rumors or why noone cares to file a bug report :-((
Harald
--
All SCSI disks will from now on ___ _____
be required to send an email notice 0--,| /OOOOOOO\
24 hours prior to complete hardware failure! <_/ / /OOOOOOOOOOO\
\ \/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
\ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|//
Harald Koenig, \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Inst.f.Theoret.Astrophysik // / \\ \
koe...@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de ^^^^^ ^^^^^
Leif Erlingsson
That URL is no longer valid. For the moment, this is a valid
URL:
http://www.go.dlr.de/fresh/unix/src/contrib/catdoc-0.90a2.tar.gz
...but this seems to change with every sub-sub-release... ;-)
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Alex Buell <alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > How about publishing the Word95/97 specs so I can write a decent small
> > wordprocesor that can read/write these formats, and compiles into a 4MB
> > binary.
>
> I find that catdoc is far more useful.
>
> [http://www.dlr.de/fresh/unix/src/contrib/catdoc.0.33.tar.gz]
________________________________________________________________
Leif Erlingsson, Katrinebergsvagen 70, 146 50 Tullinge, Sweden
TEL +46 8 778-5038, MOB +46 709 14-0631, URL http://www.lege.com
Paul Jakma
>
> > I find that catdoc is far more useful.
> >
> > [http://www.dlr.de/fresh/unix/src/contrib/catdoc.0.33.tar.gz]
or check out mswordview:
http://www.linux.ie/~caolan/docs/MSWordView.html
--
Paul Jakma pa...@clubi.ie
**********************************************************
/etc/crontab:
01 5 * * * root find / -name windows -type d -fstype dos \
-o -fstype vfat -exec rm -rf {} \;
**********************************************************
PGP5 preferred
public key: http://www.clubi.ie/jakma/publickey.txt
**********************************************************
Phil Brutsche
[snip]
> and noone took the time to report this to XFree86 ??? that's free software :-(
>
Oops - sorry. Bad habit from my Windows days :-(
[snip]
>
> so cross fingers, try 3.3.3 and write more bug reports!
<sheepish nod> Will do!
PS: Is this (koe...@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de) correct? I got a mail
delivery message last time I tried to send there?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Brutsche
"Be of stout heart, Number One. We've handled the Borg. We can
certainly handle Admiral Jellico." - Jean-Luc Picard
Help stop spam! Visit http://www.cauce.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Phi
l Brutsche writes:
+-----
| On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Harald Koenig wrote:
| [snip]
| > and noone took the time to report this to XFree86 ??? that's free software
| :-(
| Oops - sorry. Bad habit from my Windows days :-(
I suspect the rationale is along the lines of "it's a bug in the proprietary
StarOffice"....
--
brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] all...@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator [WAY too many hats] all...@ece.cmu.edu
carnegie mellon / electrical and computer engineering KF8NH
Kiss my bits, Billy-boy.