Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat CTO Testifies at MS trial
An anonymous reader writes "Red Hat CTO Michael Tiemann testified on behalf of the 9 states in MS's trial. From the article on SF Gate: "Red Hat Chief Technology Officer Michael Tiemann said Microsoft adds 'extensions' to critical communications methods that computers use to transmit security information, print, and perform other tasks. Those extensions are proprietary to Microsoft, he said, and despite recent actions Microsoft has not been forthcoming in releasing details of those changes.""
Here is a mirror.
Alan Thicke's Journal
My Slashdot ads say "
There are those folks who exist that are simply too stupid to run a Unix-like operating system
My friends, co-workers, and I refer to these individuals those who suffer from TSTR*, or Too Stupid To Run *nix.
Do YOU know anyone suffering from this? If so, please make a note of it.
Shit, only two weeks ago? I had my dick in her ass over 4 weeks ago. Sorry about that, but she certainly enjoyed licking it off afterwards.
Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.
An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).
The other proposed 'solution', EXT3FS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.
Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.
The thing is over and Microsoft has pretty much won. How do these 9 states think that holding out any more is going to do anything? Especially with another 6 years left with this administration that totally supports the Big M.
I came accross a usenet article about this, it was quite a intresting read!
Heres the link to it on Google Groups
OK, we all know Microsoft is a covicted monopolist because we include technolgies and applications in our OS to give a better Out Of Box Experiance. Everybody bitches that MS is trying to put everybody else out of buisness, ie. Netscape, by bundling IE in the OS. Well the last time I looked Netscape was fucking FREE so how the hell are we puting them out of buisness? :)
I know that my post is off topic but frankly if you don't like MS don't buy our products and therfore put us out of buisness
Seph
Windows XP Tech Support
Flame me for whatever you want, spelling, grammer, or a bunch of anti MS propiganda. I really don't give a fuck.
Who moderated that insightful?
It's a troll I see posted verbatim all the time.
A top executive of hamburger and french fry distributor Burger King accused McDonalds Monday of taking ownership of open recipe standards in an attempt to frustrate other companies.
Burger King Chief Recipe Officer Patty Biaf said McDonalds adds "secret ingredients" to critical sauce recipes that cooks use to decrease hamburger dryness, increase hamburger deliciousness, and perform other tasks. Those ingredients are proprietary to McDonalds, he said, and despite recent actions McDonalds has not been forthcoming in releasing details of those changes.
"A sample of delicious sauce does not mean complete discclosure or substantial sauce-disclosure," Bief said.
Bief took the stand on behalf of forty-eight states that want McDonalds to be hit with strong penalties in order to restore competition and break McDonalds' worldwide fast food monopoly.
The forty-eight states want U.S. District Pacifier Bebe Coddler to force McDonalds to create a stripped-down version of its flagship hamburger, the Big Mac, that could incorporate competitors' sauces. The states also want McDonalds to divulge the method for creating its world-renowned french fries.
McDonalds lawyer and Mayor Roger McCheese said the federal settlement would require disclosure of recipes needed by other firms to make their side-orders compatible with McDonalds' dominant Big Mac hamburger.
Is it wrong to add something to your own product? (I consider a protocol also a product). It's just a new version, with new features and then Mr. Redhat can't compete, so he justs talks a lot blabla to get attention... yawn.
If Linux wants to 'win' they should develop a better product. And even if they have a better product, then they should try to get new users and MS-stuff-users using their products.
If you don't, you lose, that's the whole idea of a free market. Not only in computerindustry, but just anywhere there is one.
I tried Linux Mandrake a few times, but I'm not really impressed about it. There was always something that didn't work when I installed it.
Sure, I get it too work with some help, but that's not an option for pc-noobs and people who don't want to put that much time in it (which I can imagine, I must admit). They just want to install and it should work.
Sure Linux/Unix is a good product, but it's just what you want to do with it and how much time you want to spend on making it work the way you want it. If you have the time and you want to use it that way, that's your opinion and I think you should support your own idea's. But other people just don't.
I can live with other OS's and other supporting their OS, but I know many who don't. So, c'mon guys, on whatever OS your computer is running, stop acting like clowns and stop this useless conversation.
If you hate Unix, you'll always hate Unix and if you hate Windows, you'll always hate Windows. There's no solution and I don't think this conversation will ever end... at least not in the next ten years.
*sigh*
Looks like I'm going to read a lot of conversations like this and it looks like I'm going to write a lot of this (also useless) messages to get you people live with each other. But heh, that's just me...
Are you kidding? Apple and Linux came out of essentially socialist environments. On the one hand the Homebrew Computer Club, and on the other, Free Software.
Regardless of what various militias, racists and dissident groups might say, the individual US states are not *sovereign* in any globally accepted (or proper English) sense.
AFGHANISTAN is a sovereign state.
PANAMA is a sovereign state.
The USA is a sovereign state.
The individual "states" that make up the USA are not sovereign, because they do not have independent right to make war.
This was settled by force around 1865 or so.
The main thrust of your argument (the states have considerable ability to prosecute Microsoft without Federal interference) is correct.
--Charlie