Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft-Compaq-BeOS
shaldannon writes "This morning on National Public Radio there was a story about the ongoing Justice department case against Microsoft. Yesterday Justice Department attorney David Boies challenged Microsoft's Windows licensing policies, particulary the "verbal contracts" not to include Netscape on the desktop. He questioned a Mr. Rose of Compaq on this subject. Mr. Rose tried to distance himself from Microsoft by claiming that he'd never had close dealings with the company or Mr. Gates. Attorney Boies produced an email in which Bill Gates specifically thanks Mr. Rose for his assistance to Microsoft on the DoJ case. Boies then dropped a bombshell announcement: Compaq had been having secret negotiations with BeOS to do some development for them. At the same time, Compaq sent representatives to Microsoft for their blessing on the arrangement. Microsoft killed the deal. Compaq's attorney jumped to his feet, emotionally denying the charge and accusing David Boies of 'cheap courtroom tactics.' Attorney Boies then produced evidence from BeOS substantiating his announcement."
ZD-net and
PC-Week both also carry the story. Thanks to Rick Irvine
(a Furious Be User) and BitMan.
In related news,Matthew Tebbens
tells us that CNN is reporting that Windows 2000 will need
apps to be rebuilt or even rewritten to be compliant
(whatever that means). Update: 02/19 06:02 by S :
And to top the cake, Microsoft has been charged with
monopoly pricing in a California Class Action suit.
Thanks Dwight Johnson.
Update: 02/20 12:57 by S : More on the Be Story: Alledgedly,
Be is making an embedded OS that would have better media
capabilities than WinCE for information appliances.
/. seems has nothing to talk about but chew again and again this MS stuff. No wonder Linus doesn't read it, you'd better go coding or something useful. Or at least discuss something that you won't forget next day.
-AC
p.s. Don't tell me about spell&grammar, 'cuz if you do, then you got really no decent comment.
Isn't it ironic that Linux users think that everybody should become computer experts, but they refuse to even try to become capable with their own language?
ok, your syntax sucks
Now it can only get better for our beloved Great Satan ;-) Windows 2000 is such a high pile of trash that it's collapsing every other moment, in court they have no luck, only sales-wise they are the big winners. But that doesn't matter. Or does it?
c.langreiter@tirol.com
Am I wrong, or is the article simply saying that to take advantage of *new* features in W2000, existing apps would have to be changed or rewritten? What is so surprising about that? It doesn't mean that old apps won't run, just that they won't magically start using new features.
I smell FUD.
OJ, Clinton, Microsoft.
What do these trials have in common?
People who were/are 'sick of' these trials must
believe somehow that they are staged for
entertainment purposes only.
Kids, there are important things happening here.
The news isn't going to stop being newsworthy
just because you're bored with it!
- Chris
Whats interesting is just what were Be & Compaq talking about under this NDA? It seems that they weren't just talking about Compaq shipping boxes with BeOS on them, but about Be developing some sort of derivative OS for... what exactly? It seems unlikely that it would be for a Palm Pilot type device, my guess is that it might some sort of "Web Pad" type device. Such a device running BeOS makes alot of sense to me, and would be IMO VERY cool.
CD
Ok,
;)
1. I like Linux, but I am not Linux user.
2. English is not my native language, and this is only reason why I dismiss any comments about my grammar/spellings (sorry but Netscape doesn't do automatic spell check in forms, I hope MS will do that in IE5, or 6).
3. I am not expert in computers, although it's my hobby since 1989.
No offence to those who speak English natively, I actually generally appreciate any comments about my English, BUT when I got only this type of comments and nothing else, then it does sound for me as other parties have nothing to say
peace.
same -AC
Keep applying the pressure!
If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. To bad Cochrane is not working this case. It would look good on his resume; defended OJ and Microsoft.
You know, when you see something that muddles the facts so badly, it's hard to even know how to set the record straight, but here's a start.
What Boies introduced was a 'good faith' representation to the court that Compaq had disclosed information that had been given to them by Be under non-disclosure agreement. The disclosure was to Microsoft. No other details
This is clearly a serious issue, but nothing was introduced that came close to indicating in any way that MSFT had 'killed the deal'
If you're interested, you can pick up a copy of the transcript at the MSFT site (*gasp* this guy must be Micro$oft flak for even *reading* the actual primary source materials -- isn't it just more efficient to listen to each other's rumours?)
Which language you use is irrelevant. It's proper usage of your languange (whatever that may be) that matters.
:-)
Remember, the readers are the compilers, and we don't like errors any more than gcc does.
Did anyone read the business week article?
NT is up to 30,000,000 lines of code!!! Any microsoft are happy that they recently had a day where they actually fixed more bugs than they created new ones! Whoopee!
Even if they do manage to ever finish and debug it, it's so bloated that it's bound to be slower than NT 4.0...which Linux is alredy killing due to performance and stability!
"Are you aware that Compaq took that information, and, in violation of its
nondisclosure agreement, transmitted it to Microsoft?" Boies asked Rose as he
offered a court-sealed document to support the charge.
But the court transcript says:
p ts/feb99/0218b.doc
4 Q. ARE YOU AWARE THAT BEOS PROVIDED COMPAQ WITH
5 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNDER A NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
6 IN 1998?
7 A. NO, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.
.... 14 lines cut for brevity, but the original is at
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/transcri
21 THE COURT: YOU HAD A GOOD-FAITH BASIS FOR THAT?
22 MR. BOIES: I DO, YOUR HONOR.
23 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
24 MR. BOIES: I CERTAINLY DO.
25 THE COURT: OKAY. GO AHEAD.
So, what's in USA Today is incorrect. Boies was not producing a document to support
his statement. It's still a very serious charge (and quite likely true), but USA Today
(and others) have simply horked the fundamental fact of the matter.
Anybody else tired of abusing MS engineers?
:).
I don't like MS's business or marketing tactics at all. And if the courts find that they broke the rules - they should be punished (or the rules should be changed).
Sure some of their apps have bugs and interfaces aren't always consistant but their products are under severe pressure (probably from all that marketing
I always feel like the coders don't get a fair shake here. I'm sure those guys are overworked zombies. And they're work tends to catch the all of the anger which the MS execs produce. Sure there are bugs and even some bad ones. I'd guess this is more a product of their development model rather than their potential.
Jesus H. Christ.
Get over your paranoid delusions already. Sure, Microsoft might own a monopoly, but to suggest that MS has the audacity to doctor the court transcripts from their DoJ procedings is simply out-of-line; regardless of the fact that they might be available on their own web server.
This kind of misrepresentation is SlashDot at its worst.
Hi,
... well, I think I am content to take the transcripts at face value (i.e., bona fide).
This is the AC who posted the comment to which you are responding.
I don't trust it in the same way that I am a critical consumer of any information (hence my previous comment).
However, I do give it the weight that it deserves: that is, to me, the likelihood that MSFT would forge a transcript and post it on their web site seems highly remote.
Add to that the fact that reading these transcripts is often a far more damaging display of the evasiveness of MSFT witnesses than any bungled newspaper account could be
Assuming we all speak english...
I invented my own speaking language. At times it may resemble english, but truth be told, I am speaking 100% Anonycowian. Any differences which may appear to be spelling errors to you are in fact the correct spelling in Anonycowian.
Please stop bashing my language.
I agree also. And Microsoft isn't the only party that made the computer industry what it is today, although it IS the principal party. I mean, I was working with WordPerfect 5.1 for the longest time. But when MSWord 5 came out around the same time WP6.0 came out, well there's just no comparison.
WordPerfect killed itself with 6.0 IMO.
For me, MS products are also "good enough". There are still many MANY annoyances. Times where I'd be surfing a site, and IE would crash, causing Explorer to crash, causing me to reboot. Other times where running FFVII with some documents open in the back ground cause game instability.
but if you are willing to sit through the annoyances and just reboot, HOME USE is "good enough". Obviously the same thing can't happen in an IT workplace, so I've never defended MS THAT much.
The thing about having to recomplie/rewrite apps just sucks though. I was able to install and run win3.x programs just fine on Win95. Same with Win95 -> Win98, although there's less distinction there. But now they are saying entire apps cannot RUN in Win2000, which basically is forcing consumers to go out and buy a completely new software library, well that just sucks.
Good thing the class action suit came along.
Notice the Zdnet article slighly mentioned the futility of returning the OS? They did everything except saying the word "Microsoft tax" or "Refund Day". But the party representing the "class" definitely sounded like a pioneer in trying to return MS products.
wonder if this was the end product of the MS refund day. . . ?
did anyone read any of the articles linked?
- sure you have to rewrite you app to take advantage of new features... it's been like that since the dawn of computing time! old apps still work
- where the fsck does it say that MSFT killed a compaq/Be deal in that article?
it's fine to hate MS but pls don't enter a reality-distortion field when you do it.
I don't know. I don't question the intelligence and/or skill of those working at Microsoft (despite shoddy products, I don't attribute it to the development team, but to marketing and sales), but I do question the morals. How could somebody consistently work for a company like Microsoft? Writing huge hacks, workarounds, and unnecessary crap just because their superiors say that it's necessary for the product to sell. I've done that before (although not for long), and I really really don't understand people who can put up with it, and furthermore, while working for a drain on the industry like Microsoft.
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
do you think m$ is only out to harm its competitors? od you think they have any moral or ethical limits?
Im sure there tons of burried hooks in this stupid OS that reports back to the mothership on my wearbouts and activities
at least with linux, i can feel somewhat confident that NO m$ code is in it to spy on me
call me paranoid - but we are closely approaching the age where we are all monitor by the applications we interact with
I don't think many (I didn't say ALL) of the posts are actually going after "the engineers" at MS..
We're bashing the company here, because of shoddy business practices, because they are on trial with the DoJ, etc..
I doubt that the engineers are held there under gunpoint, it's probably an alright place to work. HOWEVER, it comes with the job.. if you don't like the company you work for, or the fact that some of us just *do* *not* *like* MS, then you can go find another job where you will be more comfortable. Simple as that.
2 counterpoints...
1. For every M$ app or OS I've used, no matter how useful or 'good enough', I have always found something which works better (there is a lot of good shareware out there). I have never been completely (or even mostly) satisfied with an M$ product.
2. For me, computers are my work and often my recreation. I don't want to be frustrated with my computer. I want to enjoy using it and usually I do, if I'm not running a M$ product. Sometimes they come out with something new with lots of improvements (on paper) and I'll give it a whirl (after all, I have to use windows at work anyway). Sometimes I like things that they have done better than anyone else, but ever single time to date, there have been enough annoying 'features' that I switch to something else. Thus, I currently use no M$ products, except what I am required to do at work (it sucks, but I have to pay bills).
-a
One problem with your argument is that both Microsoft and Compaq (and, if this allegation is true, I consider BOTH accountable) are themselves proponents of the intellectual property paradigm. That is, they would both be extremely upset if someone did this to them; upset to the point of legal action. Sure, I think it's a good idea in general for source code to be freely available. But I think that I'm justified in criticizing Microsoft and Compaq if they illegally shared Be's code, not because I'm against the sharing of code, but because THEY are.
This is, IMHO, where the hypocrisy lies in this situation.
- posting anonymously because I forgot who I am
MS gets its hard 'cause they dicked me over wrt to java development, and because vc++ doesn't work as advertised. And because I gotta buy all minds of their crappy products.
Y'see, if people could just choose an operating system, and use it, with absolutely no effect on me or my workplace, I really wouldn't give a damn about the whole issue. But it doesn't work that way.
Just in the last 2 hours, I encountered the following problems:
* We use Word 6 at work. A customer sent us a bunch of critical documents written in a later version of Word. In order to read those documents, we will have to upgrade.
* The secretary is using Frontpage to modify
our web site. FrontPage likes to gratuitously
scramble the case of filenames. This works fine
IF you are using an NT web server, but under Unix, everything on her web pages broke. I had to write a script to fix the cases of everything.
In summary: buying Microsoft products has an effect on the world around you; it forces other people to use Windows. So yes, it does matter to me if you choose Windows to generate business documents. 'Cause at some point I will have to deal with you, and I will probably be forced to upgrade to the latest M$ bloatware to view your stuff.
......Ass!
I was satisfied before I knew I could get more.
Once I had a real script language, several interpreted languages, many compiled languages, actual multi-tasking, high-reliability and great flexibility for free at home I am dissatisfied with my work PC.
MS solutions work, they've made Bill a fortune.
0. You'd have been better suited by a MAC. Fruity academics seem to love them.
1. Thats nice.
2. IIS is a piss poor webserver, and Dell has their head entirely up the MS-Rectum.
You are a tool, and MS is 80% fad. Have a nice day.
BN
Cordova,
If it weren't for the lemmings of the world, computer geeks would get the economy-of-scale price breaks, and computers wouldn't be as fast or cheap.
BN
#1>Your dissertation is on NT? NTFS or FAT? If NTFS then I hope to God it never takes a dive or you're F*%!ed...
#2> I work for Dell's Largest Lease Customer (Nortel). I'm accessing things on their site all the time. sure it's relatively stabe, but have you ever bothered to notice how FREAKING SLOW their website is? I am in a position to notice...
C.A.P.
--MCP and coincadently a M$ hate-a...
Plunk down your own $200 for a 300a, bx'pro' mb, 64mb pc100 mem for your work pc & bypass the stress/annoyance. I suppose when one get's to that point, you know it's NOT "good enough":)
Why should Microsoft bother developing anything, just look at all the solid DEC technologies that Compaq has given to Microsoft. Compaq doesn't even bother to advertise it's vastly superiour products and instead tries to push Windows NT down the throats of customers that want to remain with OpenVMS. Compaq sold its soul to Microsoft a long time ago, they might as well be considered MS's hardware branch.
I found the joke told by Judge Jackson to be
pretty funny. I wonder if it was a message
to the Microsoft legal team...
"The code of tribal wisdom says that when you
discover you are riding a dead horse, the best
strategy is to dismount. In law firms, we
often try other strategies with dead horses,
including the following: buying a stronger whip;
changing riders; saying things like 'this is the
way we have always ridden this horse'; appointing
a committee to study the horse; arranging to
visit other firms to see how they ride dead
horses; increasing the standards to ride dead
horses; declaring that the horse is better,
faster and cheaper dead; and finally,
harnessing several dead horses together for
increased speed."
:)
I am not the AC that you replied too. I just wanted to point out the silliness of spelling and grammar thread wars. Seriously, if people carefully checked every single little thing they typed, they'd be spending way too much time posting. Since many of us are already probably spending too much time posting anyway...
The worst thing about these threads is that almost everyone who posts to nit-pick about someone else's spelling and grammar has a spelling or grammar error in their post. Usually, it's spelling 'grammar' as 'grammer'. Then, of course, someone points out the error, and makes an error of their own. These sort of things always seem to suggest to me that the posters think that when they make mistakes, it's a random accident, but when others make them, it's a deep flaw. Obviously, the argument can go on for a long time.
I'm sure I've made a few mistakes in typing this. I do care about not letting my language skills degrade, but I also feel that I have a fairly good idea of just how important this conversation is. So, I haven't really bothered to check. In any case, since I am obligated by tradition to do so, I have to tell you that you left out the period at the end of your post.
Fiery death fall upon you! Ravens to peck out your eyes! May you be crushed beneath iron boots for suggesting that we moderates be destroyed. You're obviously one of those undercover, astroturfing, Microsoft assassins, direct from Satan's throneroom in the heart of the evil empire. You Linux-loving, software-pirating communist hippie! Why don't you go and play with your inferior-to-DOS operating system that doesn't even have a graphical user interface!
P.S. This is going on the theory that opposing viewpoints of equal strength cancel out to produce one moderate viewpoint. If that's not what you meant by moderate then, er, never mind.
P.P.S. BTW, in case you were wondering, I really lean towards the Linux side. I don't usually make 'MS sux, Linux rox" type postings. For one thing, my 'x' key sometimes acts up. Personally, I think that some of the software that MS sells is quite good. Of course, I probably would have thought it was good software even if MS hadn't consumed the company that created it.
Lots of stuff does not run as is, or doesn't run correctly - 40% might be a fair guess. Some of these are just installer problems, or you need to make some registry setting or copy a downlevel DLL somewhere.
As far as the 'new features' line of reasoning goes - the Intellimirror application distribuiton system will require that installers are rewritten. That means that 100% of existing applications do not take advantage of the new features.
(Netscape, Lotus Notes run fine. This should quash any conspircy theorists out there.)
(1) I seriously doubt that MS would ship Win2000 with major compatiblity problems. They aren't that stupid. Remember that Windows 95 was 99% compatible with Windows 3.1 applications and more compatible with DOS apps than 3.1 was. That took a lot of work.
(2) It's a beta, so hold the FUD back until it's shipped.
One of these things,
doesn't belong here.
One of these things,
isn't the same...
Well, I don't remember how the song goes exactly, but do you remember the little game where you had to point out which item didn't fit with the other items?
So, if we have the OJ trial, the Clinton trial, and the MS trial lined up in a row, which of these things doesn't belong? My personal answer is the OJ trial. I don't wish to trivialize the murder of two people. That is something that's very important. In many ways, murder is more serious than the President having an affair (or lying about having an affair, or whatever) or immoral business practices, granting of course, that the political and financial power involved in those other cases can _lead_ to death and/or suffering (consider, for example, the timing of the latest bombings in Iraq). Of course, even though murder _is_ worthy of national attention, all murders deserve equal attention. It's a sad commentary on this country and the importance it places on entertainment, that the trial of an entertainer (athlete/actor) recieved more media attention than the MS trial and the impeachment of the President put together.
So, basically, I'm agreeing with you, except for the OJ thing. It was news, of course, but it was blown absolutely, ridiculously, out of proportion. Otherwise you're right, just because some people don't want to hear about it doesn't mean that it's not important and not worth reporting. It's not even as if Slashdot has very many MS trial articles. We don't even see good old Billgatus of Borg all that often at all relative to other stories. Anyway, this is why stories are presented to us as headlines with short blurbs. It's so that we can pick and choose.
"Eighty percent of the code in Windows 2000 is new"
and
"with 25 million lines of new code"
means that there should be appx. 6.25 million lines of "old" code in Windows NT 5.0^H^H^H^H^H2000?
Anyone know how many lines of code are supposed to be in NT 4.0? Is it something like, say, 6 million?
Doesn't sound a whole lot like a "new OS" to me; it sounds like a massive kluge...
Hi, I'm just cutting in here, I'm not the person you replied too. I just wanted to say that throwing around labels like "Linux bigot" doesn't exactly lend strength to your argument. Just because someone is obviously pro-Linux, but has doubts about Windows NT 5.0, doesn't neccessarily make them a bigot who will never listen to reason. In light of the available evidence, there are many reasons to be wary of NT 5.0, not the least of which is that it is now titled Windows 2000, for the obvious reason that it won't be ready until then. Considering how long it has been in development (something like ten years isn't it? I'm fairly sure the original release was announced for about 1995, so that's been pushed back quite a few years) there's every reason to think that there are lots of things in it that need fixing. Logically, if they are adding new features to the OS, they are creating more bugs than they fix, because the new features are bound to not only have their own bugs, but create new bugs in existing code. It's not slander, it's a fairly obvious fact of development. You're living a charmed life if the number of bugs in your project decreases linearly.
Sigh, I once believed that I would be upgrading to Win NT 5.0 from 4.0 on my current computer, and that it would fix problems I was having with 4.0. Of course, if I can believe Intel, my computer is now hopelessly obsolete (it doesn't even have MMX! Gasp!) so there isn't much point of putting NT 5.0 on it even if I still have the machine in the third quarter of 2000 (I'm not saying NT 5.0 won't be out by then, but that I'm usually not one of the early adopters. I haven't switched to a 2.2 kernel yet either). In any case, the zip drive that I couldn't get to work under NT runs fine under Linux (although the zip drive is pretty much on permanant loan to a friend), and some of the games that I've never been able to play under NT seem to work under Wine. What a world, huh? In any case, Microsoft will have to do something impressive to get me to buy a new MS OS to use personally. Oh, and I don't consider engineering things so that all new applications are incompatible with their old OS to be very impressive.
It's a lovely thing to see, the purveyor of network misery and bloatware slowly going to Hell where they belong.
If they botch their own defense too much, they could try for a mistrial.
So give people FAST hardware at an affordable price. Correct the mistakes that DEC made, I want to be able to buy a nice new AlphaStation running OpenVMS 7.2 with the Base OpenVMS, NAS-150, Motif, and DEC C licenses at an affordable price. I'm willing to pay a LOT more to have a machine like that at home than I ever would for a trashy PC.
Besides the business world needs the stability of a Alpha running Linux, OpenVMS or DEC UNIX. It doesn't need MS crap, and it needs to be forced into realizing that!
No, seriously, do you remember the article about that on Slashdot? It was actually a Scientific American article by two guys who were working on anti-piracy tech for MS. The article was about ways they'd discovered to block what's on your CRT from being viewed by people with special recieving equipment outside. The reason it works is that the electromagnets that control the cathode rays in your monitor can be measured fairly precisely at great distances. These measurements can be reconstructed into a quite clear image of what's on your monitor. I believe the CIA refers to this as Tempest radiation or somesuch. What these guys had discovered was essentially that certain dithering patterns don't show up so well on the scanning equipment, so text could be written to your screen so that it shows up as static, or even as different text than what the original monitor displays.
All this was very well and good. Highly interesting, yadda, yadda, yah. What really got to me was the fact that the _reason_ these guys were studying this effect is because they were researching an anti-piracy technique for Microsoft which would involve prominently displayed serial numbers on all MS software. The other part of the plan would involve vans travelling through business disticts, scanning monitors from outside buildings, and (they weren't specific on this point, but I'm assuming it wouldn't be done by a human being) running the results through OCR software to look for unauthorized copies.
Now, I'll admit, they're not actively doing this, and it didn't sound like the research was really going to become any sort of policy. But still, they _were_ researching it. Now, foaming at the mouth lunatics may be able to argue that software piracy must be stopped at all costs. But a system like the one described, even if Microsoft itself behaved honestly, lends itself easily to abuse as a tool of mass industrial espionage. It would simply require getting the OCR software to look for a little more than just serial numbers.
So, no known hooks. Although, I wouldn't hesitate to believe that Microsoft has, or plans to put features in its software to report back to a central location on usage and so forth. That would also be for reasons of stopping the menace of Piracy, and would also lend itself to abuse.
It's fairly similar to cable companies sending 'bullets' (power surges) into peoples homes in order to destroy peoples illegal cable black boxes, which usually don't have fuses rated as highly as the fuses in the genuine boxes. Of course, the trouble is, quite a few people directly plug the cable into their TV or VCR quite legally, and those devices may not be able to withstand the bullet. Most people whose equipment has been destroyed that way have never known that it was done by the cable company. It's now illegal for cable companies to do that in many places to the best of my knowledge. Hmmm, actually, I think I got into a discussion with someone on Slashdot about that once. They insisted that the cable company was perfectly entitled to do whatever they feel like with their equipment, including intentionally sending power surges to peoples homes. I never got the chance to ask if he thought it was OK for the power company to do the same. Or for the cable company to rent black boxes capable of withstanding bullets that would cause other equipment to explode, killing anyone nearby and starting a fire, and then sending such bullets down the line.
BeOS sounds very impressive...I've never heard of another OS that can negotiate with a company and provide evidence. With BeOS iteself apparently running the business, does Be do anything? :-)
Their behavior has NOT been legal--for a monopoly. That's why this case has two basic facets. First, prove that MS is a monopoly. Second, prove they abused the position.
"Well, Duh" my ass.
Changing COM is a big deal. It's the shell's object model, for crying out loud. Stuff is going to break, big time. And "ActiveDirectory" sounds like another big deal. Bill only knows how deep that's been grafted into the native file system. Microsoft's the best company IN THE WORLD at engineering incompatibilities. They do it as a form of pesticide. Those IT shops and ISVs who have completely forfeited their technical initiative to Microsoft will be paying dearly for their laziness.
And the worms at through his brain.
Also, when moving to a new kernel, one often has to rebuild many user-land tools, like procps,
procinfo, net-tools, pppd, others. This is expected and doesn't upset me in the least, but it could
easily be spun that the 2.2 kernel forced many application developers to recompile their apps!
Recompile, yes. Re-purchase the binary? Not at
all. That's the Linux advantage. That's the
sales pitch. If you have to buy your apps all
over again, why not make this the last time?
Switch to Linux, not to Windows 2000.
Of course they wouldn't doctor a transcript. But they might embrace and extend it.
fuck 'em
I got windows 95 after I build my Linux pentium box in 1993. I have to say I can't get any work done in windows. I play a few games in windows, but I bought those. So, since they'd probably be as good if linux versions were made and sold-- not really a mark for "windows being good enough." The only plus for windows here is that games are available-- it's not inherently a plus.
I don't own or use word or excel or photoshop, so I've no comment there. But I will tell you that it takes quite a bit of effort to get windows to do the type of things I require/want/expect a computer to do:
Needs gzip, tar, (hell, it needs zip)
Needs a modern LaTeX package
Needs a strong text editor
Needs standard c, c++ compilers
Needs linear algebra libraries
Needs a postscript viewer for christsake.
Needs a web-browser (I hear it's included now)
Needs an email client
I know you can get editors, TeX, pine, ghostview, etc... for windows. But, my point is that out of the box windows is not good for anything.
In fact, I guess I'm saying that windows would be good if it came with all the standard Unix programs-- it'd be good if it were Unix.
Hey idiot, there's a fscking difference between an ftp server and a web site with dynamic content.
Last time I checked www.microsoft.com has ASP which requires CPU power too... not just a snazzy I/O system which the ftp.cdrom.com definately has.
I'd like to see a side to side comparison of php and asp. I'm sure php scales better and it would be a better comparison. Not some stupid apples and oranges FUD you spewed.
We need people to genuinely switch to the OS of their choice, not to get deceived into it... they will just be disappointed and maybe switch back.
If windows only has to be "good enough" for everyone to use, why is everyone putting pressure on linux to be a perfect OS before it makes is "full assault?" I think most computer users would benefit from using linux over windows even though windows does the job. Even though linux will probably be greatly improved over the next year, it's very usable right now. If you already have it it's one thing, but I don't think that microsoft should be given the benefit of the doubt when buying a new system just because it's more popular (or has a monopoly). Then again, isn't that what their whole business is based on?
dontcha hate it when people who use the laws
to their own advantage, all the time screaming
about their own rights and justice and honor,
turn around and break those same laws
for their own selfish purposes?
fuck you compaq, i'd rather eat a shit sandwich
than touch one of your goddam computers.
Hey, haven't you heard??? This is the new slashdot/linux/osi world. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to bash Micro$oft!!!!
AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU M$ LOVER YOU CAN LEAVE, OR WE WILL SEND THE LINUX EVANGELISTS TO SEE THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND! HOW DARE YOU TRY TO INTRODUCE FACTS TO SLASHDOT!
I don't want everything bundled as part of the os kernel, for obvious reasons. But as a computer user, yes, I like to have all the tools I need on one cd. So, it's a pretty tough question, really.
What makes windows bad is that it doesn't come with all the gnu/Unix tools that we really need. What's a person to do?
Are you trying to be ironic, or does it just come naturally?
Why in set-top boxes of course!!!
My only question is will embedded BeOS be Jini compatible?
Good god... "cheap courttoom tactics"... sounds like my little brother playing Street Fighter 2 and looking for an excuse whenever the computer beats him.
there's no need for Word and don't bother with antiquated tools. Also....please try to get Corel on BeOS
Given that 40% of reasonably current applications
won't run under Win2000, the chances of a 16-bit
legacy DOS application working, and without
getting stopped by the OS (BS or no BS) are less.
Personally, whilst I run Linux as my main OS,
I have to say that M$ Windoww 95, M$ Office 95,
and the couple of desktop enhancements that come
with M$+95 (AA fonts and full window dragging)
is the best Office solution ever brought to
market.
That said...
Real shame about NT 4.0 -- too incompatible
Real shame about NT 4.0 SP1 -- ditto
Real shame about NT 4.0 SP2 -- multi-MB crashme
Real shame about NT 4.0 SP3 -- OK, but barely
Real shame about NT 4.0 SP4 -- Still not fully Y2K
Real shame about Office 97 -- F$KING PAPERCLIP
Real shame about Office 97 SP1 -- F$KING PAPERCLIP
Real shame about Windows 98 -- F$KING EXPLORER
(one bad HTML page and your entire shell goes...)
Real shame about THAT F$CKING PAPERCLIP
(p.s. if you want to convince yourself, try
doing VBA programing and ask the paperclip
for the help pages for 'for each' constructs)
Real shame about HTML help -- old Winhelp was fine -- HH is SLOOOOOOOOWWWWW
Real shame about M$ Java -- didn't work as usual.
unfirtunately, write once run anywher still kinda
lives on.
MS used to be good enough for me. DOS/Win3.1 was reasonably good at doing what it did, and versions of DOS after 4.00 (shudder) seemed to be getting better and better.
Maybe my expectations have risen, or maybe Win95 is actually worse than DOS/3.1, but that's how it feels to me. Now:
Unix is small program heaven compared to Windows. You've got about a million scripting languages to choose from, a C compiler sitting around begging to be used, and no monster-sized GUI API to fuss with.
One other point: you're doing with your computer what I do with mine when I'm running Windows. Except that I've got a P166 with 32 MB of RAM. Aside from playing games, what are you doing, besides running NT, that really needs all that hardware?
Mind the Gap
Ease of use. Win95 and MacOS machines just don't need administration the way Linux does. You buy them, you turn them on, you use them, you turn them off. "Setting up my Internet," is probably the toughest thing a Win95 user ever really has to do, and that's a hand-holdy, pointy-clicky, press-F1-for-help experience at worst. At best, they just install some software given to them by their ISP. Installing software (or 90% of it, these days) involves double clicking and then chatting to InstallShield (and you really only have to grunt).
If people moved right from that to Linux in its current state, they'd be asking "stupid questions" and then you'd just be sneering at them and telling them to "go use your stupid Macintosh."
Or Steve's. The person you're attempting to condescend to mentioned that most people who find Windows "good enough" would probably be better served by MacOS. Given where MacOS X is headed, I think that's pretty accurate.
I've probably missed some points on both sides. Whoop-de-doo.
Mind the Gap
Most likely not. A class-action suit is typically filed by parties directly injured by some company's practices. In this case, it would be filed by those directly injured by Microsoft's (alleged) monopolistic pricing. People affected in such a way would be those who bought Windows, who feel that they paid an unfairly high price for it as a direct result of monopolistic practices. SVLUG users typically do not buy Windows, so they'd have no reason to file suit.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
rebuild apps? *gasp*
Sort of like rebuilding during the a.out->ELF switch, eh?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Ahh, so that's what this is about. I didn't see that made clear in the article. From what I had read, I had thought that it was a complaint about monopolistic pricing of the retail Windows you buy in stores (i.e. the plaintiffs are claiming that $180 is too much for Windows). If it's about the pre-loaded Windows copies, then I can see why one of the LUGs would get involved.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
One of my aunts is an extremely artist. When not producing some of the best oil paintings and tiny clay figurines I've seen, she uses Juno for her mail and, from what I know from my visits, needs some hand-holding to do anything else.
Please don't refer to folks who may simply have different talents as drooling idiots.
Many thanks for raising the point. Integration is nothing but a buzzword -- and one which makes for slower, more RAM-hoggish and less functional software (witness MS Outlook for a prime example).
Less functional? Yup. Calling a dedicated program with years of development and refinement behind it (particularly when the user can choose this program) is far better than including a piece of software built in (the effort towards which could better be put towards improving the software's primary functionality).
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
And proud of it. Moderation in all things, including moderation.
There are times when an unreasonable response is the only reasonable reaction that you can make to an unreasonable situation.
For example, the current situation with M$ - totally unreasonable, and therefore "DEATH TO MICROSOFT!" is the only reasonable position that anyone with an understanding of what an OS is can take.
So in this reagard, all this talk about "where are the moderates?" is really pretty silly. There is nothing moderate about M$, so we are under no moral compulsion to treat M$ as anything other than vermin to be crushed.
On this point, I'm really looking forward to work on Monday. Telling the pointy haired imbeciles that "..Windows 2000 contains 25 MILLION LINES OF NEW CODE...". The look on their faces will be a *classic*.
Pretending that all people in a group are identical is the cornerstone of predjudice.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Did bob really say, "hello?"
IMO, that's plain wrong, since the question mark is an artifact of the sentence surrounding the quote, not a part of what was quoted itself, but it is the right way according to the rules.
Because of this some programmer types deliberately break English rules when they don't make sense.
Another example is the silly notion that some combinations of prefixes and bases are "real" words, and others are not. For example, why is "ingratitude" a word, but "ungratitude" is not? It's totally arbitrary.
I feel sorry for those people who have to try to write software to parse English. It must be quite painful.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The problem with judging whether or not something is "good enough" is that everything you are used to always seems "good enough". People once thought typewriters were "good enough". People once thought 640Kb was "good enough". If you've never tried anything better, then you never know what's missing.
(Yes, Windows is plenty good enough in most people's opinions, but since those opinions have been shaped by years of using Windows, it's hardly a meaningful observation.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
No, but he must be a Microsoft sheep for actually believing that MSFT is an unbiased source of "primary source materials".
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I bet a whole bunch of ms folks are glad the weekend is upon us. What a way to end the week, eh?
(hehehehehehehehe)
I know it's impolite to laugh at the misfortunes of others, but in this case, I could care.)
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Rose didn't seem to know much of anything when he was on the stand. Boies presented him with information on several contracts that Compaq had made with Microsoft and others, and he didn't seem to know anything about them. He is either a janitor that was recently promoted so that he could testify, or he is lying about not knowing about the contracts so that he won't have to answer any tough questions about them. Which do you think it is?
Be's CEO said that someone from Compaq had called him and admitted to divulging the info to Microsoft back in Novemeber. I doubt he would make something like that up. The fact that Compaq hasn't been adamantly denying this pretty much dispells any lingering doubt.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
1) Can I inquire how pointing out that the statement "Attorney Boies then produced evidence from BeOS substantiating his announcement" is factually false, is somehow putting a 'pro-MS spin' on things.
Well, I don't know if he produced the proof in court or not, but Be's CEO has said that he was contacted by Compaq back in November and was told that Compaq had divulged information to Microsoft that was under NDA. Here's the link:
http://cnnfn.com/digitaljam/9902/19/ microsoft/
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
>Did bob really say, "hello?"
Actually, in this case, you would put the question mark outside of the quotes, because it chages the meaning of hte quote.
Just one of many exceptions to a rule. Having had to learn English as a foreign language, I have come to realize that English has many rules, but almost more exceptions.
BUT, I say, if one is to learn and use a language, then one might as well use it properly, just as any other tool. After all, you wouldn't go changing C or Perl syntax just because "it doesn't make sense."
For my purposes, Windows is nowhere near fit for use. The lack of a desktop pager (multiple desktops), the stability concerns, and priciness of the tools required to really get anything done with it completely rule it out from my perspective.
Reminds me of the article I read here... went searching back on it... and here it is . .
The most interesting is the link to Compaq's itsy
Somrthing that has small multimedia capabilities... could be used as a digital picture viewer with some sound...
Maybe they were looking to put Be on it?
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
Oops. Write that down to comment confusion, I'm having some trouble keeping the threads separate and I must have gotten confused about where this one came from..
Sorry.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
It isn't stated explicitly, but it looks to me as though the California class action suit was filed after Microsoft/Dell/Compaq/etc. failed to provide refunds on the 15th.
This would make for a better story, but is there any basis in fact?
"Microsoft's Refusal to Provide Refunds Backfires" sure is a nice headline...
Linux and OSS started growing because the hackers did what they wanted, when they wanted, and with an excellence born of love. Watch out that you don't trade in who you are for something as shallow as "winning" against some "great evil", or one day you'll wake up and find that you're really no better than what you replaced.
Keep on hacking.
Not defending M$ or Win2000 here, but if systems undergo significant change sooner or later applications have to be rebuilt. It isn't reasonable to condemn an OS for lack of progress (e.g. Win95 built on a DOS foundation), then also condemn the new system (Win2000, assuming it ever sees the light of day) for making changes which break compatibility with the old system. Upward compatibility is nice, but if the price of significant progress is recompiling/recoding, soorner or later that's the way it will have to be.
sPh
>Anybody else tired of abusing MS engineers?
Please do not use MS and engineering in the same sentence. Unless you are describing business tactics.
They don't innovate. They assimilate!
Sheesh!
I wonder when MS magically disappears at some point in the near future (hmm, maybe by an alien ship kept at Roswell to be used by the DoJ) and any memory of MS is wiped from the member's of society by satellites orbiting the Earth, what company are you paranoids going to go after next?
How the fuck do you relate Microsoft antitrust court documents with aliens and roswell? Talk about needing prozac, get a grip and write something comparing two related things next time.
> Sort of like rebuilding during the a.out->ELF switch, eh?
...
Only if you happen to work for every company whose software you use and thus have access to the source code
I like Word 5.1 on the Mac. We're upgrading to Office98, but I'm hanging on to 5.1 as long as I can. It went downhill from there, except for some improvements in tables and borders.
Excel is one of my favorite apps. I've never tried another spreadsheet except for KOffice and the Siag spreadsheet and that's not really a fair comparison.
Everybody ridicules Bob but it's the only really innovative thing MS has done.
I agree that Windows is "good enough" for a lot of people. I'd also argue that MacOS would be better for most of those people and that most of them would best avoid Linux for at least another year.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Charles Lingo, who filed the suit, was part of the Windows Refund Day march - he was quoted by the AP.
BTW, I've seen some legal analysts wailing that the MS defense team is screwing up. I don't think there's any strategy which would do better - MS can't be defended because their behavior has been indefensible.
Only today in the New York Times, there was mention of an e-mail sent to Compaq by a MS account manager which contained a thinly-veiled threat that there would be no change, in spite of the 1995 consent decree, to the per-processor OS licensing. How do you defend such contempt for law enforcement? This is only today's news; it's been going on for years.
My attitude towards MS was formed by having my wallet lightened by them three times (yes, shame on me), and getting _nothing_ in return. I have no sympathy for those who commit consumer fraud.
Typical reactionary response...
The AMD 5x86 was not a "piece of crap". It was a chip designed to be cheaper than a P5-75 and about the same performance on a 486 board. My dad ran one for about 2 years until he got a K6-2. It served his needs until his needs grew.
I also use a 5x86 as my Linux gateway to the Internet at home (IP Masquerade box) and web proxy. It's grossly OVERPOWERED for that task mostly due to the amazingly slim Linux kernel.
While I don't have an NT 4 box near by, I am sure the system requirements do not state P2-400 minimum (seeing as it was out before or right at the same time as the P2 came to market). Your attitude that people need more and more hardware is fueled primarily by the crap (yes it is crap) that MS has helped to perpetuate. Word uses something like 20% of my K6-2's CPU power when it's sitting idle in the background...come on MS...
- BeOS is still more of a development OS than a production OS, althought at this point it clearly outshines windows as far as reliablilty and performance are concerned.
These two statements seem contradictory to me. BeOS Release 3 may have been a little shaky on Intel, but Release 4 is pretty damn rock solid, and as about as full featured as the first release of Windows 95, plus and minus things here and there. I don't see any reason not to consider BeOS a production OS at this point. Hardware support and applications are issues, as they are for any platform that's not the Microsoft reference system. But they don't detract from Be's viability strictly as an OS, and I think statements like the above are a slander against how far Be has come.- App availibility is Be's biggest problem...
I don't agree with this, either. The only things I can't really do right now on BeOS are check my mail (my mail server uses Kerberos) or use any Java. And many other things don't work as well as, say, their Windows counterparts -- the Be clones of AOL Instant Messenger and ICQ are not full-featured or stable, Javascript support in the NetPositive browser is still in beta, etc. But there are several office productivity suites, which are quite good, and seem like they'll be matching MS Word within a couple releases. There's even Minesweeper, and soon Quake. App support is a problem, but not as big as people make it out to be. And it's certainly not Be's biggest problem. I'd vote for hardware support on that.. it doesn't really matter if an OS doesn't have the apps you want if it doesn't even run on your hardware.- and they're still massaging the API's to make them easier to develop for and to maintain.
I don't see what you mean here. The API was pretty well designed from the get-go, and hasn't changed drastically. R4 introduced a new version of the MediaKit API, but that's not really part of the core operating system, and the old API is still around for compatibility, so nothing breaks. It's sort of like Microsoft releasing a new version of DirectX.Where the APIs need the most work is not "massaging" existing code, but adding the stuff they haven't gotten around to, like some specific networking routines and the last bits of POSIX compatibility (all coming soon.. but soon is never early enough. :P) And hardware 3D acceleration is another API that people are starving for, but it's coming in R4.1 with limited driver support, to be expanded afterwards.
- MS really has a great opportunity to slam Be because they don't have a strong application base, and Be knows this.
No, I don't believe that at all. MS has an opportunity to slam Be because Be doesn't have a strong media and mindshare base, with consumers, retailers, and OEMs. Of course the trial is changing this -- I think that's one of my favorite parts of the whole mess, all the attention that Be is getting.Having actually used NT5.0 (now W2k) betas, I can say that no Win32 apps need be rebuilt or rewritten. They run under w2k. Now the fact that the betas were unstable as hell is another matter.
Name one that doesn't.
The fact that W2k is ass doesn't mean that it's not compatible with the last version of ass.
Sure you can upgrade the kernel without recompiling? How about the libc though? I'm finally finishing up recompiling things that used slang, stdc++, ncurses, or wrote to utmp for glibc. I still can't run certain builds of X, because I haven't gotten to dealing with the libc change there yet.
Windows is good enough on the desktop. On the desktop, all that really matters are the applications, not the OS itself. Most people use their workstation simply to launch their favorite programs - Word, Netscape, Quake. Despite what people say ("mac-bashers" / "PC-bashers") most people simply don't know and/or care enough about the differences in OS's, as long as they work, and Windows or MacOS usually suffices.
As a server? No question in my mind - Windows NT can't hack it. It doesn't have true remote administration out-of-the-box, so I have to physically go to the console of a server to do most things, or buy a product such as PC Anywhere. There's no built-in scripting language (that I can find). For example: We were trying to setup an intelligent mirroring / backup system for our Intranet web servers. In a bash shell, it would have been easy - two scripts run from cron. How we ended up doing it was with a custom-built C program, a custom-built ColdFusion program, and about 5 dos batch files run from NT scheduler. (A co-worker later found a copy of GNU Bash for Windows for me. Next time, that's the route I'll take.)
I'm constantly running into things that NT doesn't do without the purchase of yet another software package; and even then, it's some kind of cluster-f*cked solution. Add to that: no out-of-the-box email server, having to reboot for every little configuration change, no true multi-user capability (along with no equivalent of "su")... the list goes on and on.
Just talking about this gets my blood pressure up. Just to vent: "Windows NT Server is the biggest cluster-f*ck of a joke ever to claim to be a networking solution. If I ever meet Bill Gates, I'd very much like to strangle him for this fact alone. "
But, like I said: Windows on the Desktop? It'll do - it's really the applications that define the user-experience, not the OS.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
Eh, fudsters, 40% of windows applications still don't run under W2k...
At least as far as I know...
OK, people, we all know that PR workers from Microsoft do in fact read Slashdot, and try to put a pro-MS spin on things (and anti-ESR sour grapes) while looking like just-your-average-Joe. MS has a long history of pseudo-grassroots media tactics like this.
Now, you (the poster) may or may not be one of those "M$ flaks", but there's little way to know if you don't identify yourself. Don't blame us for being justifiably suspicious.
And I'd prefer a transcript source other than Microsoft-- I hardly consider them an unbiased source. Or honest-- they have a history of altering court evidence and other documents.
James
james@jmarshall.com
(signing my name in case login doesn't work through this experimental proxy)
The sad thing is that not only does this person handle English much better than 99.44% of the "English as a first language" posters would handle this AC's native tongue, he/she handles English better than those "English as a first language" persons handle English.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
You're absolutely correct about the inconsistencies and illogicities of English. Unfortunately trying to correct them now results in stuff in print that just looks "wrong".
However, if you know the way it's supposed to be, you can do it "wrong" for effect. (This usually works better in speaking than in writing)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Yeah, but I'm a conservatively liberal radical moderate!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Cable companies, just about the only thing this side of the mafia which, in comparison to, Microsoft looks at least benign if not benevolent.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
But do they monitor your scanner?
"blatant propensity for abuse" + MS
Yeah, sounds about right.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I regret to admit that I like Microsoft Word (after you turn off all the idiot "wizards" and "helpers" and that fscking paperclip!). The last version of Word I really liked was Word 5.1a for the Mac.
Word is, of course, shoddy, but it's damn useful.
I have not tried any of the available office software for Linux. I tried LyX about two years ago, but found it a bit too primitive. So I do most of my writing in (brace yourself) 'vi'. If Word were to become available for Linux, I would probably buy it.
Disclaimer: I am an employee of Be, Inc.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
We tend not to bother reading the comments, actually...
(Doing the happy dance)
Yipee! Time to start shorting Microsoft stock. Ok...maybe not, but it's a happy thought. =)
"What do you mean, invalid parameters? 9000Gigs of RAM and it can't answer a simple question!" -- Earthworm Jim
Once upon a time, Unix machines of any sort were unheard of, and high school students like me were happy with a 286, a greyscale monitor, DOS 3, and Word Perfect 5.1 (and Civ :-).
It was reasonably priced, and even if it crashed at least it didn't mudge your hard drive.
There was once a time when MS wasn't outwardly evil.
My wife runs Juno, writes letters with MS Word 6 and makes greeting cards with some other package. She gets upset if it crashes and she loses work. In general, Win95 is "good enough" for her, but I think she'd appreciate something that didn't lock up so often. (It's a good thing she has a couple of computer experts in the house to bail her out every time Windows barfs.)
I'm stuck at work with a P166 with 64Meg RAM, running NT. I can't find UML modeling apps that run under Linux, so I have to use NT. IT'S A PIECE OF CRAP. I'm constantly waiting for it to respond, or rebooting, or screaming at it, or tearing out my hair.
It all depends on what you're doing, and how hard you push the OS. NT probably runs "good enough" on a 200MHz with 96Meg, but I could probably build a real kick-ass server running Linux on a box like that.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Like they say, if you don't like the articles, then don't whine about having to read them.
(BTW, how does flaming MS help MS???)
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Seems like the judge just keeps handing out more rope for MS to hang itself with...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
I suppose it's safe to say RHS doesn't think of himself as a moderate...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Hummm... Runs Win95 just fine
> Juno is an email service for idiots.
Does the job... for free. Got a problem with that?
> Your wife sound like a drooling idiot.
(*snicker*) You wish...
> A P166 is not a suitable box for NT.
Duh!
> A P2-400 is a good starting point for NT.
Helloooooo.... That's my point. NT and all the MS network services that go with it, are so bloated you have to buy a new computer every year just to keep even. However, when the machine's handed to you to do a job, you don't have much choice. If I could find a Linux OO UML Modeling tool, the NT would be gone in a heartbeat.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
It looks like the stuff about having to recompile all your app.s is just grandstanding. What it really means is that if you want to use APIs that are new in 2000, you have to rewrite your code. Duuh! Of course my apps won't be "directory enabled" unless I write code to interface to the directory.
Now, if they'd decided to scrap the random, poorly documented Windows API set for something organized and understandable, *that* would be news.
What it says in the articles is that Compaq showed some proprietary information that was under NDA to microsoft. Not that microsoft squashed it.
Read. Comprehend. Then Report.
Now, at least, we know why Microsoft has been so vociferous in citing BeOS as a competitor in the OS market, despite Be's repeated rebuttals to the contrary. Seems MS has known more about BeOS all along than they let on...
... hope we don't get slashdotted... Eh, what am I worried about? I'm pretty sure Dreamhost is /. effect tolerant...
Look, I had too. . . Some people are actually interested in the case. If you aren't interested in the story, don't follow the link. Why would you spend the time to complain about something you feel is a waste of time? Let those of us who want to read the news read the news, and do so without someone who can't articulate his/her thoughts attempt insulting us.
"If truth insults you, then I feel sorry for you"
."
Well, it is beyond the next day and I am quite certain I did not forget what I read, therefore it was a false statement and NOT truth I found insulting.
"you guys who supposedely lead Linux hype. .
I never said anything about hype, I just read about the MS DOJ case, saw someone comment that reading that was worthless, and I replied that I didn't share their opinion
"You'd better contribute to Linux codebase"
I am still learning to code, though I do try to help people who have posted to the Newsgroups about Linux problems. With or without AC threats.
"but you can't shut my mouth"
I am not trying to have you shut your mouth, I am merely asking you to stay relavent to topics, ie: "I am sick of this MS court case stuff" is fine, but "If you read about the MS court case you are wasting your time and you will forget about it tommorrow anyways" is not a relevant or worthwhile comment.
This works to the favour of Open-Source Software as a whole...
Funny... My company Linux Systems Group, writes a lot of custom Linux applications for clients and we have no problem running them on a 2.0.x kernel or a 2.2.x kernel.
(Of course the apps may run more efficiently on the newer kernel but certainly don't break at all....)
The Linux community and Linux based companies should shout this to the high heavens and let the frustrated developers out there know.....they have a new home in Linux.
Nicholas Donovan
Linux Systems Group
If you don't want to recompile, simply stick to the older kernel. Linux just has faster development cycle. Unlike Windows(tm)
Running as strict static bin files they were fine in most cases. For others, it takes all of 5-10 minutes to recompile most apps. Big deal.
They apps were not broken like the Windows apps will be. I mean how long can one kludge over DOS?
If you find that Word97 is broken because of Windows-2000 how are you going to recompile that?
You can't. Your forced to be at the whim of M$ to produce the next service pack that will yet again break more things than it fixes.
One of the great things about Linux is its rapid development cycle.
By the time Windows-2000 comes out we should be on kernel 2.2.14
Cheers,
Nick Donovan
Follow the chain of events, and you will see that the Be information released in court today is a direct result of Microsoft recently claiming in the same court that Be is a viable competitor to Windows. That claim pissed off Be to the extent that they announced a few days ago that they might "join" the case. Now it's obvious why.
The gall... using your monopoly power to shut a competitor out of the market, then holding them up as an example of "competition"... is utterly unbelievable. And ultimately unsustainable. Bullshit and duplicity just don't work the same under cross-examination.
I never tire of abusing engineers, let alone MSoft engineers.
I never tire of abusing engineers, let alone MSoft engineers!
Wow, you newgrouped one of my fave newsgroups. We're not worthy!
_Deirdre (also a BeOS user)
You're right. Word 5.1 for Mac was the last, best version. But what the fsck did Word 4 (also Mac) need with a fscking screen saver?
As for office software, I use WordPerfect. I actually think I prefer 7 to 8 but I'm using 8.
I will never again *buy* a MS product of any flavor, but I will cheerfully continue to use my ancient copies of Word and Excel on the Mac until I find something I want to convert all those files to (and until I have enough accrued vacation time to do so).
_Deirdre (Linux, BeOS, MacOS and MacOS X Server user)
Heh, maybe so if they were just a mean little company. But now that they're a mean big company (read: market-grabbing monopolist), the gov't *should* pay attention to the competitors' complaints. Microsoft earned the attention they got from the authorities, but now want to cry about it.
And finally, donating $ to political campaigns wouldn't have helped as much as evincing a little humility. This whole case probably could have been forestalled/avoided if Microsoft had made some good-faith gestures when that door was open to them. Instead, they chose the in-your-face, criticise-by-ridicule route. Typical.
Does anyone know if it was the SVLUG that filed that Class action suit in CA?
Have you ever ran a old window 3.1 app on win95, It's the same concept. With the win 3.1 apps you can't use long file names, fancy dialog boxes and stuff like that. There's not much point in upgrading all your severs and such to Win2k if your not going to use apps that take advantage of all the new bloat.
http://www.benews.com/story/?ID=680
Please identify yourself
Please relax, Mr. Policeman. Who the hell taught you to take yourself so damn seriously?
we all know that PR workers from Microsoft do in fact read Slashdot, and try to put a pro-MS spin on things (and anti-ESR sour grapes)
Sour grapes my ass. There are a lot of valid criticisms to be made of Raymond's behavior and ethics. I am no damned fan of Microsoft, much less an employee -- but I am even less a fan of their tactics and mentality than I am of them as a specific corporate entity. Microsoft is just one part of the problem. You, for example, are another (much smaller) part of the same problem.
Your quasi-Stalinist crap is disgusting and contemptible (and entirely of a piece with the Manichean anti-Microsoft hysteria that I hear out of Raymond). If someone should dare question Raymond, you blindly and dogmatically refuse to listen -- god forbid someone should try to make you think for yourself! Oh, heavens, no! You just write 'em off as a Microsoft flack. Well, screw you, buddy.
Nobody is above criticism. Not you, not Eric Raymond, not anybody. Raymond's beliefs are at odds with those of a large portion of the free software community. We have a right to speak about this. Deal with it. Free and open debate is not a crime, however much you might wish it were.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
And then when the aliens gobble up Rob Young they'll move on to SuSE, and then Debian, and then the little grocery store on the corner, and then the FSF, and finally when there's nothing left they'll run around in circles biting each others' ankles howling about ZOG or whatever.
They'll think of something, trust me. William Jennings Bryan is not dead, just sleeping.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
It gets worse. I think it was on the CNN business news last night that I saw a spokesman for Be say that he was concerned that Compaq might have violated their NDA and shown some of Be's code to Microshaft. (I know; the people who disagree with the idea of intellectual property will think this is OK).
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. -Albert Einstein
I'm a Linux fan, but I use Windows, too. I don't think that there is anything fundamentally wrong with Windows as an operating system. I think that most OSes like Be and Linux have an intrinsic advantage in that they do not build on a hoarde of old code and complexity. This makes them world class Operating Systems.
Microsoft does have an advantage in consumer product availability and overall convenience and ease of use for the average computer user. Ten years ago, your average computer user was far more technical than the computer users of today. A "geek" can't be as happy with Microsoft's OS because he or she doesn't have as much freedom anymore to tweek and program. Windows is targeted to the computer illiterate, and this offends a lot of technically oriented people.
My problem with Microsoft is their marketing. I am comfortable that they have a good product, but I don't like the way they have to own everything. This is the fundamental difference between Windows and Linux; Linux is free, Windows is not. Both are fine operating systems.
I think that the previous poster wasn't reffering to Br. Boies, but rather to Microsoft. The fact that Microsoft can get away with all of their blatant lying (or at least what appears to be blatant lying) is really quite amazing.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
> Of course, MS solutions have worked, and better
> than just 'good enough'.
Yes, and miracles happen, too. Pointing out the exception doesn't do much more than prove that Microsoft products haven't been magically cursed.
> 0. My dissertation research is done entirely on
> NT. I tried Linux, but found myseld spending way
> too much time doing system administration tasks
> and not enough time doing actually research.
What system administration were you doing? What was your dissertation? Once you get a linux box set up, it runs (assuming that you have a large enough disk to hold your system logs and user quotas, etc.). I'm in charge of the web server for the entire college of liberal arts and sciences here at alfred (which houses the search engine for the whole scool). It's been up for 59 days (power went down 59 days ago), and I've had to do precisely 1 administrative exercise that wasn't adding a user account or resetting a password. I had to restart apache because we're using an ancient version of apache due to a miniscule hard drive and not enough space to compile and install the new apache. This box is doing dynamic content, ftp, and mail. Practically 0 administration that isn't human necessary (setting up and modifying accounts, etc.). I've never had a Linux box that I had to administer in the sense of keep it up, only fine tune to what I want. I've never really had to do that with NT because, whenever I did anything with NT, there was no fine tuning to be done. You can occasionally change a thing or two, but otherwise it's fairly strict bondage on that beast. If something doesn't work, you're @#$@#'d. You want to do something non-standard, you have to start writing programs with expensive tools. Don't forget my question: what administration did you constantly have to do?
> 1. I work for an R&D govt contractor doing
> simulation and modeling, software development,
> and other scientific endeavors. All of our
> deliverables, from programs to reports, are done
> on NT. Our customers are very happy.
Who are you customers? The gov't is fairly vague. Which government? What are you simulating? What are you modeling? What software are you developing? What other scientific endevors? What boxes that NT ran on were capable of doing intense calculations? The only high end hardware that NT runs on are Alpha boxes. That isn't that significant a fraction of high end hardware.
> 2. Dell runs there WWW site on NT.
Wow. Microsoft runs Hotmail on Solaris and BSD. What hardware does Dell run its website on? If the answer is 200-500% more hardware than would reasonably be required like www.microsoft.com, that isn't saying much about NT past the fact that it isn't completely unworkable.
> I think the current antiMS sentiment is 80% fad.
> Remember, computers are not sentient. They are a
> tool. Use whatever helps you get the job done.
Maybe the current antiMS sentiment is 80% fad. Maybe not. It's almost impossible to actually determine do to the vagueness of what you mean. If you're talking about the total population, then 80% of every populational sentiment is fad. I've yet to hear one person able to defend microsoft other than based on hardware support that someone else wrote (i.e. drivers provided by the manufacturer) or applications that run on windows. Neither of which is actually attributable to Windows being anything but dominant.
Actually, that's not quite true. Superior integration often touted. I haven't really dealt with this, so I'm not qualified to say anything about it other than this: I haven't heard about any integrated capabilities that aren't either marginal improvements.
Question: if my program invokes sendmail to send files, does that mean that I have "integrated email capabilities"? What about running wget to fetch a web page, do I have "integrated email and web functionality?" What if I use some of the database libraries to access a database, do I have "totally integrated email, web, and database capabilities"? If the answer is yes, then how is integration anything more than a word for what UNIX has been doing for the last 20 years?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
What on earth are you talking about? Microsoft was behind everyone on the web developing. It didn't have a TCP/IP stack in win 3.1, that had to be written by trumpet. The web nearly passed them by, they had to play catchup with netscape once they realized that the web mattered. The only concievable thing that Microsoft has done to benefit humanity is making better intel hardware more in deman, just to run the next version of windows at the same level as the last one.
Think about what a friend said to me (heavily paraphrased): "I figure that M$ has set computing back ten years. Here's why. W2k is supposed to be more posix compliant, have more UNIX utilities, and support user quotas. UNIX did all that 10 years ago."
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
People generally advocate abiding by their agreements. Especially when they aren't being broken for a good cause. It's one thing to break an agreement for the greater good, even if it probably shouldn't be done in most cases. It's quite another to do it out of self interest. Anyhow, people aren't really bashing compaq for sharing, they're bashing microsoft for allegedly killing off the deal that they had no right to know about.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I looked on their site, and all I found was
a *SUMMARY* of the days events in court. *NOT*
the entire court transcript. A summary is easy
to bend to your cause.
I don't have time to dig too deeply so if you
can could you share the URL of the *ENTIRE*
*OFFICIAL* *TRANSCRIPT*. Otherwise I assume you
thought that daily summary was the real deal, and
you will have my pity.
???
I read the bit on apps being rewritten for Windows2000 and could only say "duh!" When has any OS ever come out and apps didn't need to be rewritten to take advantage of the new features.
The BeOS bit did not surprise me at all this is very typical of MS.
I'd describe myself as a moderate. Actually, I'd describe myself as someone who sees computers as a tool and not something to get too emotional over. That doesn't mean they are not my passion, but I've seen so many things come and go (RIP Nextstep) that I'm kinda tired of advocacy.
I do ok with NT and BeOS.
I think it is a typical bandwagon reaction to all of the antiMS sentiment in the industry. Clearly *every* application will not need to be rewritten or changed.
Personally, I hope that MS has a team of hotshot OS programmers working on the real Windows 2000 version while the official hacked version is being beta'ed as a trial ploy.
Of course, MS solutions have worked, and better than just 'good enough'.
0. My dissertation research is done entirely on NT. I tried Linux, but found myseld spending way too much time doing system administration tasks and not enough time doing actually research.
1. I work for an R&D govt contractor doing simulation and modeling, software development, and other scientific endeavors. All of our deliverables, from programs to reports, are done on NT. Our customers are very happy.
2. Dell runs there WWW site on NT.
I think the current antiMS sentiment is 80% fad. Remember, computers are not sentient. They are a tool. Use whatever helps you get the job done.
... because it's better to share source code, right? I am being a bit sarcastic because the people who generally advocacte that anything that is not OSS is crap are
1. singularly condeming MS and not giving Compaq their share of the responsibility (supposedly, Compaq entered the deal and then went to MS to get their blessing -- maybe they came bringing gifts?)
2. upset that the code was shared. Isn't this what you people want?
Personally, I believe in intellectual property and the right to keep things you develop secret, if that is your choice. But in a forum which frequently calls on any commercial interest (Sun's Java, BeOS, Windows, Photoshop, etc.) to release their source code at the expense of being trashmouthed, I find some of your reactions pretty hypocritical.
Sheesh!
I wonder when MS magically disappears at some point in the near future (hmm, maybe by an alien ship kept at Roswell to be used by the DoJ) and any memory of MS is wiped from the member's of society by satellites orbiting the Earth, what company are you paranoids going to go after next?
I like Word, too, but it took a bit to make the transition from LaTeX. Once I figured it out, though, Word makes many things alot easier (except references -- if anyone can recommend a way to handle references in Word like BibTex does, I'll drink a beer to you and your family).
Now, if someone would develop an office assistant with Elizabeth Hurley in a teddy, I might use it.
It tells me you are a troll since you ignored the original question.
Good point.
Jerry Falwell?
Newt Gingrich?
(I've never met them, though)
Let's see.
The original question was, paraphrase, have MS products been used such that they were 'good enough'.
I answered affirmatively by providing three examples.
What questions did he answer?
Items 3, 4, and 5 are as mundane as saying "Humans need oxygen to breath."
There was a similar article in ComputerWorld this week claiming that apps would have to be "rebuilt or even rewritten" to run on Win2000. On closer inspection the article says you only need to do that if you want to use new features like ActiveDirectory or COM+.
Well, duh.
First off, I am a little confused why you would have to recompile. Dynamic linking should take care of this. I mean, if you don't change a line of code and recompile then isn't this just relinking?
Secondly, last time I checked I usually had to rewrite code if I wanted to take advantage of the lastest gee whiz stuff. You had to recode mainframe apps if you wanted a spiffy HTML front end didn't you? So why weren't there articles about how AS/400 forced you to recompile or rewrite apps if you wanted to take advantage of the Internet?
Except for the Linux box under my desk. I couldn't the network management I need to do with four times the machine and twenty times the budget. It's running on a discarded P5/90 w/40M RAM a 1.5G HD. What's it doing? Nocol, mrtg, tools for mapping traffic, and I use it to telnet to all my routers and to hold all of their configs and software images.
And I'm just a newbie. When I grow up, I haven't any idea how far this can go, but I like what I see.
I'm not real crazy about using Linux as a workstation, but then again, I'm still a newbie and I use it at home just to get used to it. I run NT, NW 3.12 and 4.11 Small Business, and Linux. Linux plays with the others really well.
Grow and learn, it certainly is worth the effort.
Chris
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
I found MS's attempts to bring BeOS into the limelight quite predictable. At this point, it server two purposes, first it allows them to claim that there is strong competition isn the OS market, and secondly it puts BeOS out for mainstream review before it's really ready. BeOS is still more of a development OS than a production OS, althought at this point it clearly outshines windows as far as reliablilty and performance are concerned.
App availibility is Be's biggest problem, and if you're looking for alternatives to windows, Linux is probably the best choice right now. Be is workiong furiously to attract developers,and they're still massaging the API's to make them easier to develop for and to maintain. MS really has a great opportunity to slam Be because they don't have a strong application base, and Be knows this. Gassee say that he had an equally good opportinity to stick it to MS for anti-competitive behavior. Since MS tried to fsck them, Be fsked them back, but MUCH harder.
I can't wait to see what justice does to punish MS when the trial is over. I think the 3 companies split is the best approach cuz it forces MS to compete across the board. If you divide their product lines properly, they can't "integrate" any apps into the OS without fscking one of the other baby-bills and begging for a shareholder lawsuit. Splitting them logically, financially, and physically is the only way I see to end the abuse of power that they've been practicing for over a decaade.
-earl
It might be argued that Mr. Boies should have turned over a copy of his evidence before Mr. Rose took the stand, but playing games with the discovery process is nothing new.
Depends. During discovery you're obliged to turn over things your opponent asks for or about, but you're not obliged to volunteer information he hasn't asked for. If MS didn't ask if Boies had evidence Compaq had leaked confidential information to them, AFAIK Boies is entirely within his rights not to volunteer the information. Yes, Boies ambushed Compaq and MS with this. Part of his job is to pull suprises like this if they let him set them up.
The embarrassing part is that MS's attorneys keep letting these things happen. MS has done more for the government's case than any of the government's witnesses. That's sad.
I think the point was to provide evidence that MS has enough power and influence that a company like Compaq would feel that, if violating a non-disclosure agreement with another company would annoy MS and endanger their relationship with them, then keeping MS happy is worth the legal consequences of violating an NDA. That goes to the question of whether MS has enough power to be considered a monopoly ( albeit a bit obliquely ).
OTOH, it would be more impressive if DoJ could come up with more than a single such instance. A single instance is easily just an accident or oversight, multiple instances make a much better case.
As far as primary source material, I don't consider anything from either MS or DoJ a primary source, no matter what they claim. A copy of the transcript from some source not affiliated with any of the parties involved, that would be a good primary source.
The characterization is misleading, yes. But, Be hasn't been involved heavily in this case ( as compared to, say, Netscape ). Boies is relying on their statements about what Compaq said to them, and I don't think Be would stick their nose in like this if they couldn't back that up, not considering the risk of annoying the judge by making claims in court you can't produce evidence to back up. So far, Boies has a pretty good track record of producing the evidence ( and MS is not happy about that at all ).
As for trusting or not trusting the validity, both MS and the DoJ have overt reasons to spin anything they present in their favor. MS, moreover, has already shown that they're willing to, under oath before a judge, misrepresent and edit evidence. If they've done that under those circumstances, I simply can't trust them not to do it again.
If he has evidence, he has to tell you about it. If he doesn't, he probably will shortly. That's one of the chances you take in discovery, and it does work both ways.
Depends. You needed to recompile to use the ELF format, but a.out binaries would still run ( and still run today ) just fine if you included a.out support. This also applies to things like libc upgrades: when I upgraded to libc6 all my libc5-linked apps continued to run just fine, albeit using the libc5 libraries.
The userland tools that need recompiled are the ones that talk intimately to the kernel. Things like procps or sound drivers need rebuilt. Things like StarOffice should continue to work just fine, blissfully unaware of the kernel upgrade.
Linux, I think, has a much better record for letting older apps continue to run without breaking than Windows. Heck, just installing an NT service pack or a new version of their compiler can break things in the Windows world. They really need versioned DLLs.
I regret to admit that I like Microsoft Word (after you turn off all the idiot "wizards" and "helpers" and that fscking paperclip!).
The last version of Word I really liked was Word 5.1a for the Mac.
I find it particularly distressing that for most purposes, I find MS Word to have gotten worse rather than better in the past two major versions. Word 97 seems slower and less useable than Word 95 which was worse than Word 6.x.
Word is, of course, shoddy, but it's damn useful.
Urk. Well, it is better than nothing I suppose.
I have not tried any of the available office software for Linux.
You probably should. Either StarOffice or ApplixOffice's word processors are quite adequate substitutes for MS Word for most purposes. Both of them even bear more than a passing cosmetic resemblance to MS-Word. I also like the Word Perfect that is available for Linux.
I tried LyX about two years ago, but found it a bit too primitive.
You might also check out other free stuff like Maxwell. The KDE (KOffice) and Gnome projects also both look like they will eventually produce usable office suites.
So I do most of my writing in (brace yourself) 'vi'.
Well, I still use 'vi' for a lot of things. But for general writing I tend to use a word processor.
If Word were to become available for Linux, I would probably buy it.
Yuck. I wouldn't. If for no other reason than Bill doesn't deserve my money. But seriously though, I wouldn't use it even if it was free. As I said before, Applix Office and StarOffice are really quite decent, especially for the money.
If it weren't for Bill using mass marketing and shoving new and better, bug filled apps and OS's down the public's throat. The WWW, E-Commerce, URL's on Billboards and the public actually cozying (is that a word?) up to technology would have taken another 25 to 30 years to get to the point we are now. It may suck having to beat MS with a stick to fight this monopoly thing; but it has done one thing which benefits society. Just think what all us /.ers will be able to accomplish in our lifetimes due to Bill's abuse of the everyday lemming.
/.
Cordova
- Can't lurk all the time. -
ps. "lemming" not used in reference to anyone, and I mean anyone who would actually frequent
My microbes must have translated that wrong! - Aeryn Sun
... if you or I behaved like this in front of a judge, we'd be in prison by now. Think about it! The only thing that this case will prove is that might makes right, money buys justice.
I may be bored of it sometimes, and not read the news/posts/rumors on it, but this trial is actually pretty important, even if it got started by something as inconsequential as a web browser. But then again, Al Capone got busted for tax evasion, right?
Gee, all we ever seem to get are posts from trolls(MS4ever) and idiots(Linux Rulez! M$ sux!). Hmm, a new RPG, T&I? Anyhow, I was wondering if there existed any moderates, or are they all scared off by the T&I, as well as flamers and such. Are there absolutely no sucess stories at all? Maybe this is the wrong place to ask...
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Of course that will probably attract all three of the above!
Oh well. Still, here's the warning; there is no need for M$4ever posts, or rulez/sux!, or general flames, bashing, or trash. Serious question...
Has any one used and been satsified by M$? Are they really just 'good enough'? Or are they not? While I generally don't approve of their tactics or their OS, they are 'good enough' for me; I use WinNT on a 200MHz PPro with 96mb of memory. I surf, email, telnet, word process, excel, photoshop, and DES/RC5, as well as use Winamp and the odd game of Civ2.
I do plan to build myself a Linux box in the future, for educational purposes and such... But for each niche their respective strengths and weaknesses. M$ just happens to be convenient, easy to learn/use, and powerful enough with a decent system. Perhaps it isn't suited for desktop publishing, or as a server of files/html/mail/etc, or as a serious multi-media processing station. But for playing around with pictures, and doing the odd html/email/ftp, or the usage of decent 3d graphics, or the programming of the small program, or the playing of games, it seems okay. That may be the biggest thing Linux has to conquer; Heck, as far as consumer growth, Apple and MacOSX has a better potential, if only because it has all the important user features as well as the future OS support...
Comments?
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Great, not only will corporations and such have to worry about Y2k issues and bugs, they have to also deal with W2k issues and bugs; I wonder if this is just an opportunity for small startups and no names to write/port to W2k first, before bigger houses, and have access to the newer features?
Change of OS provides many new opportunites, as well as inconveniences. Of course, the new opportunites aren't really for the end users, even if that is how it is advertised... But since when have big companies cared about us end users? =)
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
What the heck was that all about?
Of course, if you are trolling, the fact that you got a few good replies obviously worked...
Though it's flattering to see most of the discussion generated by your post(I did the original "Trolls, lamers, and flamers, please ignore!" post), the point is to be sorta useful...
AMD5x86 was intentionally supposed to be cheap; Intel always has a high price premium(Except for their Celerons...).
While I don't use Juno, who are you to judge or criticize? My dad doesn't know Unix or PCs very well, so he's stuck with Win9x even though its unstable and crashes... For the longest time I had him using my NT machine until I came back to school. And excuse me, but I've been running NT on a PPro200/P2-266 for the past 4 years, and on a P120 for the past 4 months, with perfectly acceptable performance. Sure, something better than a P120 is nice, but a P120 is cheap man.
A P166 is so much faster than my P120...
I sorta wish I knew how to find you to give you a real scolding...
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Sorry for the double posts =)
I was also running WinNT on a Pentium OverDrive/120 and a Pentium 120 at some time, before going for the PPro 200...
I went for the PPro only because I added photography, zip, scanning, and PhotoShop. Otherwise I probably would have just stuck to a Pentium 200, for the 300$ price difference...
My next system will be a dual system, just for fun =)
Dual Boot NT/Linux of course.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
And which language would that be?
That would be the language where they say "don't tell me about my spelling and grammar errors."
Someone who specifically asks that their mistakes not be pointed out fits into this category pretty well. Having said that, though, I must agree with the original sentiment; if all you can do is correct spelling or grammar, you don't have much to add to the group.
Umm...follow your own advice :) The bit about the deal being squashed was on NPR, not online.
/. seems has nothing to talk about but chew again and again this MS stuff. No wonder Linus doesn't read it, you'd better go coding or something useful.
:-D
/. because it's fun. I get to read things that interest me, and see the opinions of other people on those subjects. Despite some opinions to the contrary, we can't all code all the time.
Linus doesn't have sex with me either, but that doesn't mean I should give that up.
I read
It might also be argued that Microsoft already knew what Microsoft had done. It's stupid to argue that the evidence is illegal because Microsoft didn't know that the govt had found out what Microsoft did. Unfortunately, that's the kind of thing that happens when you have a legal system instead of a justice system.
I did tech support for Win 95 for three years. I spoke with over 20,000 Windows users in this time. Most people who find it "good enough" don't use it often, don't push it very hard, and don't upgrade. It is acceptable if it crashes once a week or so. It needs to be rebooted daily. If it bombs in a big way, you need to reinstall the operating system; often, you need to format as well. All of this is accepted as a fact of life.
I feel that the biggest problem for Windows is that Microsoft encourages independent software vendors to replace system files willy-nilly, and to put application files in the operating system's directory. This makes any form of quality control impossible, even in theory.
Oh, and I use Win 95 for most things at home. It mostly works, I can show my wife how to use it, I can show my two and four year old how to use it. Ease-of-use is Linux's only real hurdle to OS dominance.
microslut NEEDS this stuff......keep the Linux faith. :)
I read an article that described his courtroom talents as inspiring to watch, and this seems to be another example.
It must have been almost poetic to watch him deftly lay the trap for Mr. Rose, and in springing it, simultaneously catching Rose in a lie and bringing the BeOS situation into evidence.
(Please let me know when I finish what category I fall under.)
I can definatley see your point of being a "moderate"-enjoying the advantages of MS as well as Linux. You are right about one thing-Linux is struggling right now with decent 3D support, although that is something that will be conquered soon-without a service pack, or special driver that will make you re-install a pre-existing service pack (but that's a different story right?)
By reading your great success story with dealing with MS-I can only come to a few conclusions.
1. You purchased the OS for the full price from a certified MS vendor or other reseller.
2. You have never violated ANY MS licensing agreements-such as installing an MS product on someone elses machine without purchasing a valid MS license, or making copies of the software with the intent of personal use.
3. You have followed all guidelines of shareware policies, and either purchased the products or deleted them after the evaluation period was up.
If all of the above is true-then you truly are an advocate of MS-someone that Bill would be truly proud of. My OS of choice (Linux) has only one golden rule: Give credit where credit is due. Not too hard of a rule to follow.
It truly is a good thing that we always have people such as yourself to remind us that we are all trolls or lamers if we voice our opinions.
Been a long day-Rants are good, I just did a nice little one myself. I noticed one reply to your posting about the MS/sucks comments being 80% Fad-which is true. But to reply to your posting (without sarcasm)-MS could be a usable OS, and it is "good enough" for some people-My main meaning for the three points was that it is all about money with them. All three points have nothing to do with durability-being "good enough"-or being useful in any way whatsoever-they are all about money. Microsoft has made it easy for us to become criminals (and I am sure we have all violated at least one of the mentioned). Hopefully the larger companies like Redhat and Caldera won't fall to the same fate as MS. If you remember it wasn't all that bad in the beginning-has anyone ever had a crash in DOS? I have maybe only once. It starts to get into the factor of quantity instead of quality. Linux is the better OS-you have to admit, even though most programming is running on a budget of $0. It blows my mind that they make so much money-yet apparently cannot find decent programmers to spend it on (must have promoted them from upper management). I had an NT4 machine at my home once also-for learning purposes. It actually did run OK for a while (with a one user load). But after I installed SP3-things were never the same after that-after having to reinstall in a couple of times, class was out-and so was NT4. People are probably always going to follow the FAD-you are right however-maybe we should try to focus more on how good Linux is-rather than how bad MS sucks-definately couldn't hurt.
In the future our attention will be as valuable as the almighty dollar. Whatever we are watching is news. It's happening now, it will only get worse. So yes, if I am bored it will stop being newsworthy. Whoever this guy is he is not working in the entertainment or news industry.
Space Cadet
It seems to me that if Compaq signed an NDA for it's discussions with Be, than ANY mention of it's talks with Be to Micro$oft would be a violation of that NDA, regardless of whether or not M$ killed the deal. So are we now going to see Be suing Compaq?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Would it be possible for Linux users everywhere to pull together and filed a class action suit against Microsoft? We had Window refund day, why not take the next step and sue them for all the obvious reasons? I was just reading about the two other lawsuites against Microsoft that just poped up and it gave me (and I am sure others)this idea. I don't know anything about the law pertaining to class action suits, but if one guy in California can do it, why can't we? Just an idea....
Blah.