I say we run a test on a 486 running Windows 95 with 16 meg ram
vs Linux running on a quad Xeon with 1 gig ram.
disable the 486 CPU cache...
Can anyone come up with some tests we can do that Linux dose BLINDINGLY FAST and Windows CRAWLS at?
I know some of you would say "Anything" but I mean.. something Windows dose especally bad that Linux dose especally well...
(I don't use Windows byond trying to understand it so I don't know what makes it slow down)
>Check again and stop being so defensive
What? You open with "Bullshit" and close with "Don't be defensive?" Cripes...
Me thinks you get this advice a lot... well nows not the time.. be defesnive... this is a deate.. not a tea party...
>99% of IBM's advertising for OS/2 touted it's multitasking and robustness (in obvious comparison to Windows)
What IBM shouldn't advertise the strongest points of OS/2?
And where was IBM when the "Bug free" Windows 95 turnned out worse than OS/2 Warp (Allready taking a huge publicity beating)...
Given the chance IBM just backed off and hid.
At the same time Apple went on the attack.
(I never saw the "Better Windows than Windows" thing...)
> Microsoft defines the market for cheap internet servers? Microsoft defines the market for Unix systems? Check again and stop being so defensive.
As the joke gose "Unix.. is that a Microsoft product?"
Right now in the busness world "Cheap Internet servers" means Windows NT
Unix market?
Your trying to be cute.. Unix means high end servers... thats owned by Sun and Linux dosn't compeate...
>Look at any Apple marketing now and you will not find any direct comparisons to Microsoft products - this has little to do with the $150 million investment MS made in Apple and more to do with the common sense that it was just lousy marketing.
1980: Mac, Amiga, Atari, NeXT, Sinclare, TI, etc etc etc
2000: Microsoft and Apple and thats all
Your telling me all those other companys who left the market did better than Apple?
TI did better.. they had better things to do than sell computers...
But even then.. they liccens the NuBuss to Apple...
> Look at Apple - for years they flogged this whole Apple vs. MS thing, until they realized that it wasn't selling any more computers.
Apple attacked Microsoft 10 years ago...
10 years later.. aside from Linux.. they are all thats left.......
And Mac advocates continue to bash Microsoft to this very day...
You don't survive by ignoring the company your compeating against...
Microsoft defined itself by Digital Research in the early 1980s and by Apple in the early 1990s.. now they define themselfs by Linux...
We can only return the complament...
> The bad side? A tarnished Linux. Why? Because smart and curious people are wary of evangelists of any stripe.
If this were true then the computer industry is compleatly devoid of thies trates..
The survival of Apple due to Mac advocates..
The only reason the Amiga name means anything today is becouse of Amiga advocates.
The only reason Linux exists today.. Linux advocates.
The reason OS/2 Warp is dead.. IBM did NOT evangelise..
Slashdot itself is where it is by advocating....
The entire computer industry is an industry of evangelists...
From Sun Microsystems to Commodore...
This applys to cars as well...
I've found WV Bug and Rabbit owners to be increadably rabbid.. They remind me of Linux advocates...
What a sad shame thies advocates have sooo tarnished the WV Bug...
Yes people get emotional and fanatical..
Emotional attachment to tools?
I've known people who'd kill over tools...
More than that...
Try saying "Craftsmen sucks" to someone who has a set of Craftsmen tools...
You'll see seathing anger byond what you'd see in any Linux advocate.
Part of that is attachment.. part is just plain annoyence..
Let's say we are both looking at a smart sexy and talented woman..
Now I say she is ugly and dumb as a rock and can't do anything...
Again.. annoyence.. You don't know this person.. nither do I..
We just don't like it when people advocate as true what we ourselfs know to be untrue. (Even if we are wrong).
Often we justify our anger as just dispising lyers but the reality is often we purely wish to defend our own reality.
And I have found this holds true in all circles.
The people who really find Microsoft bashing annoying are people who prefer Microsoft Windows.
Users not attached to Windows in some way (emotionally, finantually or by friendship) aren't bother by it.
People bothered by Linux advocacy are those attached to ANY other Os. You need not be attached to Microsoft to be annoyed by Linux advocates. BSD users are probably FAR more annoyed as BSD really is a lot more reliable than Linux.
Now to add.. Don't confuse annoyence with Linux advocacy with annoyence with people who won't shut up. Everyone is annoyed by an idiot who dosn't know when to drop it and advocates are really good for that.
On one side I've rightfully had a boot placed to my skull over not dropping the subject..
On the other.. I've had to be polite far to often to far to many Microsoft advocates who allready know I'm an admitted Linux Zellot.
Don't do what Apple did and attack Microsoft do what IBM did and ignore them.
Apple attacked Microsoft while IBM sat around and did nothing...
As a result iMacs are in the stores.. OS/2 is not..
Some of Linuxes popularity comes purely from being an alternitive to Microsoft Windows.
Many users come to Linux by way of Windows.
Microsoft defines the market.. Linux defys that defition...
The alternitive to attacking Microsoft is allow Microsoft to define Linux...
Linux is the greatest threat to Microsoft and in turn Microsoft is the greatest threat to Linux...
Should we really turn our backs on them?
Is it really a good idea to ignore the greatest roadblock to getting Linux into market acceptence?
Rember... Right now any product not by Microsoft is an alternitive to Microsofts products...
AoL is still an alternitive to ISPs...
And AoL dosn't compeate with Linux in any way
Not "Every" distro..
Debian, Slackware and RedHat however have.
(The Debian CD I tried to install required so much information from me it seemed I'd need 5 years experence with Debian before I could ever get this stupid CD to install)
It depends on how cocky the distro people get.. Mandrake screwed up day one.. it took Slackware and RedHat years to make the same kinds of mistakes.
Debian seems to go overbord trying to PREVENT similer mistakes and end up bombarding the user with questions he can't answer. (the inverse extream)
But at one time RedHat and Slackware had a clean history...
It happends to them all.. the key is to GET ON THEM ABOUT IT.
Slackware wouldn't upgrade to glibc and they lost users over it.. They were not forgiven. They fixed the problem.
You forgive them they won't do anything...
So beat RedHat up over this.. Back off ONLY when they fix it...
If someone else pulls a stunt.. beat them up over it as well...
This is neat.. this is cool.. this kicks butt.
Microsoft has a history.. a known for doing "bad things" and we have come to distrust them by default.
What is likely to happen..
This will rock.. it was work great on Windows.. This will then be ported to Solarus.. and work great (But no one will try it) It will be ported to MacOsX and then MacOs9 and work GREAT.. (But the Mac people won't trust it enough to try it). It'll be ported to Linux.. Linux people will poke at it but otherwise leave it for dead. It will be ported to Amiga and ignored.. It will be ported to BeOs and then called despret.. It will be ported to BSD and BSD people will say "Not on my box" it'll be ported to AthreOS and even they won't want anything to do with it.
That is what I believe will happen.
I beleive Microsoft will honnestly attempt to make a cross platform system.. premote it and push it.
If Linus or RMS had a reputation for writing bad code GNU/Linux would not exist today...
This platform dosn't have much hope.. it dosn't matter how good or how cool it is.. It's masters have a really bad reputation and the computer world isn't going to forget that anytime soon.
To bad... this looks like it could be neat...
Maybe make yet annother language module for GCC core to go with all the other modules and that would pritty much handle your porting to all the diffrent platforms...
(PS no I'm just highlighting irony.. They aren't the same thing.. But like the diffrence between a motercycle and a truck the both get you from A to B reliably)
TheDraw was an ANSI text art/animation program used on BBSes in the 1980s.
It was basicly used to make ANSI text animated art (using color and curser codes and extended ANSI graphic text)
Someone hacked it and released it under a new version number.
The authors of TheDraw had to offer an alternet release version..
Then there is the Cyrex 586 and 686...
The Cyrex 586 was an enhanced 486 not a Pentium clone..
Now RedHat releases an unfinished GCC and gives it a version number...
Three issues come to my mind on this...
1. If it's not an offical release it should not be included.. if you need it wait for the offical release before releasing your distro....
Offer an update pacage with a warning "sticker" if you must but DO NOT RELASE A FULL DISTRO WITH ALPHA, BETA or worse PROTOTYPE SOFTWARE...
If the people writing the software don't think it's ready there isn't any reason to overstep the judgement of thies people...
Unless they can not be trusted to start with and in that case you shouldn't trust the software they write at all.. stable, prototype or anywhere in between...
2. Version stampping someone elses software is a big NoNo.. At best it creates a problem with the version numbers.. at worst it could create confusion.. if the GCC people didn't know they might release an offical release with the same number... a person could still think this build was a stable release and treat it as such...
3. The idea of releasing a distro with support (The busness modle RedHat selected) includes provided added value by dubble checking STABLE open source software using the standard closed source checks.
By checking prototype software your basicly bypassing the open source quality checks and going entirely with the closed source quality checks that give us such quality software as Windows 95.
I'd like to explain here...
Before Microsoft released Windows 95 they went all over it to find every bug. They did wide beta testing handing out CDs for free as well as using paid beta-testers. It was a very involved process.
Mostly this was sparked by the early OS/2 Warp release.. Warp had bugs.. Microsoft basicly hyped that Win 95 was bug free and they needed to make Win 95 accually meet the hype becouse at that time they belived if they failed then IBM (The masters of FUD) would flash FUD Microsoft into oblivion.
All this effort did NOT result in a bugfree Win 95. Shortly after release someone fould that Win 95 left remote access ON by default with no password. Microsoft quickly fixed the mistake.
(IBM didn't FUD Microsoft over this and thus was the death of OS/2)
The point of this story BTW is not how much Windows sux (Microsoft fixed the bug quickly.. Thats how it works in open source.. find a bug fix it quickly.. and thats what happend here...) but for all the effort Microsoft put into making Win 95 perfict they couldn't make it bug free.
In short.. if the people who write the software think it's bug free.. check it be sure.. if they think it isn't bug free... then don't include it...
and DO NOT give a release version number to an unrelased pacage.. give the test or built number instead.
But don't think your people can stablise prototypes all alone. Microsoft dosn't even think they can do that.. they went for a wide beta instead.. and even THAT wasn't enough..
Part of why many can produce consistently reliable and bug free software is that the software they write is very simple. But Windows isn't.. nither is GCC.. pacages like thies need a great deal of checks to be sure everything works as it should.
RedHat should not bypass this process to get a quicker release date.
Note (and I get to say this) this isn't flamebait..
A little of both..:) I go through keyboards and I am extreamly lax about spelling...
Hack it's the Internet...
I gotta learn to relax a bit more when people point out the obveous..:)
A better idea BTW is to e-mail me not post on Slashdot.. lot's and lots of people can't spell becouse english is a second language to them..
It's my primary language so I have no such excuse.. but then read my preveous comment about the education system and then look at my spelling.. Isn't it intresting the US education system says my spelling is good?
Every revolution has a leader.. someone who is willing to lead the charg into battle... even if it's some nut running in his underware carrying a mop..
Free software dates back to... oh gezz 1950 at least.. when home computers existed as dreams as people attempted to build computers out of spare parts.. dead radios etc...
At that time the open source was the design logic everyone shared in hopes of getting a computer built.
But there was no real revolution before the 1980s. Before it was just a very loose nit community...
Then someone fed up with efforts to crush free software started the charg...
The community is old... the revolution isn't.. well 20 years is old.. but comparied to the community that dates back to the 1950s.. it's just a baby...
You know Microsoft will NEVER say "We started the home computer revolution".
And why? Becouse they are ethica? Ha not even
Becouse they are honnest? Nope sorry
Becouse they know not to cross the line? Buzz wrong answer...
The reason is they'd never get away with it..
30 years ago and even now someone will stand up and say "Bull shit"... and they know it...
RedHat made some importent contrabutions but they didn't start anything and everyone knows it.
One of many...
Al Gore will never live down his "I invented the Internet" and RedHat will never live this down...
Screw RMS.. screw Linus.. screw the half a dosen companys that came before us.. we started it...
>The thing that worries me, I remember when M$ release the first version of IE, and thinking "there is NO WAY this thing can be a threat to Netscape". I certainly don't want M$ to become the dominant set-top box company...
The setup here was Netscape just went out of the way to push Mosaic off the market when IBM produced a browser built into OS/2..
Netscape delivered a blow to OS/2 by discontinuing Netscape for OS/2 when IBM did that.
Microsoft got the hint.. Netscape can not compeate with free software. So IE came along.
I've mixed feelings about this.. Is Microsoft pushing Windows or pushing free software?
I tend to think they are just pushing Windows based on nasty comments made of free software.. But then IE is built on a liccensed version of Mosaic...
In the game console market Nintendo, Sony and Sega are all nasty and evil mini-Microsofts. It's not the same. Microsoft isn't half as evil as some of thies companys however they failed to dominate like Microsoft mostly becouse they have other evil companys to deal with.
Nintendo knows how to create a monopoly and Sega knows how to bust it. This isn't the environment Microsoft can really dominate.
Microsoft has the power to beat them up but in the game world they know all the durty tricks.
In the computer industry Microsoft keeps saying "But everybody dose it" in the game industry.. The other guys say "Who me? No I'm not hidding anything"
It's really not the same world.. people have zero loyalty.. Your only loyalty is to the console you allready paid for... when it comes time to buy a new one you'll buy the one you like the best.
Microsoft may be attempting to gather brand loyalty by being GASP Nice Guys... Yeah I think they can pull it off but it's no easy effort.
Nintendo BTW really pioneared the "Carry us only" market stratagy.. Sega sued over it and won... No DoJ.. no conset decree...
And Nintendo kinda set things the way they are in the console game market today.
I don't think Microsoft can really beat the people who are allready in the console market with anything less that the best machine they can build.
After all... For Microsoft Inovation is copying everyone else...
For Nintendo inovation is develuping new ways to distory compeating companys.
Can anyone here tell I'm anti-Nintendo?
But I'll leave Nintendo alone becouse they don't control the market... No body dose...
I'd like to see Microsoft try to Embrace and extend this market... and not get sued by Nintendo, Sony or Sega...
Ok DC gave us CueCats for one thing..
Supprise.. we want to use it for that one thing...
We aren't compeating with DC or setting up an identical service.
Just writing the software for OUR systems to do pritty much the same thing it dose on Windows...
DC gave it to us and we use it.. Thanks for the GIFT...
Oh wait.. not a gift?
Yeah thats right.. we aren't allowed to use it becouse we don't run the software DC
I may suggest a new agreement... "If you write software to scan our barcodes it must do XYZ" Hay I mean I could scan it with an HP barwand.. why should it be a CueCat hmmm?
You'd be better off in the long run...
Your going after people who are just trying to support you.. Instead of a C&D just send a letter saying "Please make it do XYZ so our services are not bypassed"... hack.. e-mail the code changes you want and I'm sure they'll be more than willing to accomidate you...
(If you lose money we don't get anymore CueCats.. that's nogood for the people who just want to support your product and service)
So please... work WITH not AGAINST if you like the hacks.. then just say "We need thies changes so our product works correctly.. please?"
No begging... just be nice... if you gotta beg then send out the C&Ds...
We want to support you godammit... Let us use your product and service... gezzz
Did you know Hemos patented implus buying on the Internet?
And he also patented bad spelling... (I paid him a liccensing fee for my spelling.. really) and all kinds of stuff..
But now if this passes I'm gona have all Hemoses patents challanged...
Especally that bad spelling one... At least I don't have to pay per spelling error. I got the bulk rate..
It dosn't quite work that way...
There is a bit more of a maze to this to navigate.
You need to allready have your paied lobyests in place.
You have regulare events and invite a bunch of people... drop a few hints and leave them alone to enjoy the event.
Now.. next event.. invite people who did as you asked. Weed out people who went the other way.
Amazon and other Internet patent holders don't hold such events...
However Fortune 500 companys with no such patents have allready dropped hints that they like this bill...
Most busnesses oppose patents such as "one-click-shopping" becouse they can not compeate in a market where all prior art has been rendered invalid.
Thies patents are seen as gold mines to companys who have not allready become successful or are having problems.
The companys who don't want thies patents are the ones buying the politcians.
BTW.. local politicians are much easyer to buy and the process you listed is how you do it.
The problem is finding out about thies events as the people invited are usualy selected from a list of people who have given a great deal in the past and don't ask much in return.
The busness world has been bitching about patents on doing normal busness on the Internet for a lot longer than Slashdot has.
This was all happening as patents were being issued and the real impact was yet unknown.
But quite a few probably stood by and said "It's ok" and maybe issued patents as well.
At that point the patent office got flooded and it seemed like the patent office was rubber stamping patents.
All this before Slashdot ever knew what was going on.
I got wind of this in like 1997.
Anyway... Now I'm sure quite a few are complainning.
It makes doing busness on the Internet very hard. Every busness move requires a patent search..
Even for busnesses who have patents this is a pain..
They have been pushing for this for a very long time.
By the way it also allows introduction of prior art...
But like the biggest patent issue we have is for the one click shopping and isn't that a busness practace patent with a real world counterpart?
I forgot to mention.. part of the new law addresses this by allowing us to point out prior art the patent office is blatently ignoring and by banning patents on existing busness practaces.
It dosn't let us do anything about the "obveous" problem.. as long as they can get away with it they will use the deffinition of "obveous" meaning obveous to a hampster or someone who lived his whole life in a cave... That leaves out patents on fire and running on a treadmill.
The patent office has been ignoring larg segments of the process for a while now.
Even before Slashdot jumpped on this issue the busness world has published some consern that the patent office has been answering a flood of patents with a rubber stamp.
A lot of those patents were simply patents on existing real world busness.
The patent office treats the Internet as compleatly new and unique and ignores 20 years of Internet prior art and 30 years of BBS prior art. Not to mention prior art from other networks (FidoNet and WWIV Link)
Hyperlinking for example.. This was not exactly a new idea.
Annother example is one click... clearly obveous... but I'll go on.. There is prior art in the BBS world.. however instead of searching the history of online book store BBSes the patent office granted one click shopping.
The prior art would not be easy for you or I to get at however the patent office should have access to the copyright databank from years preveous when you needed to file your source code to get a copyright.
A program for one such program has a copyright in the 1970s.. at that time you needed to file your program to get a copyright.
While the busness is gone and the software not in use the program should be on record.
As I rember one of the features was to rember your credit card information and keep it on file so that it may bill your card automaticly as you went shopping.
Alternitively it could just ask you for billing method etc when you were ready to "check out"..
Very much like todays web malls.. and Amazon.. only all text and you navigated like a text advanture seeing vertual shoppers etc just like a game (In fact they had to add a warnning that this was REAL and you really would be billed for this stuff).
One of the items was the program itself..
For the most part it was an on-line book store with a few software titles and some nick nacks (like floppys with images printed on them... the truely original porn disks.. I never got them but I imagin the disk holes blocked the view)
Anyway... prior art.. only this vertual mall closed many years before Amazon openned it's doors.
The problem is not only is it obveous it's been done before.
Basicly BBS style online books stores did this. Exactly the same busness and everything however on a BBS.
Amazon basicly addapted commen BBS practace to the Internet.. fair enough.. They waited so all such prior art was dead and gone.. Fair enough.. they patented it...
The reason nobody did it on the Internet BEFORE now is becouse it's DANGEROUS.
The technology is not anywhere near secure enough to do something like this.
On the other hand it's not that hard to do.. A bit simpler than the way Slashcode or ZenToe.cgi keeps track of your sig file.. Add secure credit card athentication and you have one-click...
It's like a lot of thies patents lately...
And finnaly the artical comments that people are taking huge risks going into e-commerce.. more than anyone ever did before...
Well if there is such a huge risk factor... maybe it's not somthing you should be getting into to start with.
Redhat 7 should have never been released. It's a shot at being the first 2.4 distro out (out BEFORE 2.4 itself is ready).
Mistake...
It seems to me this was bottom up made to be a 2.4 system all ready to go. It's shipped before the pacages it relys on are ready.
I understand why RedHat 7 was made this way what I don't understand is why they released it NOW...
If this is a race... then declare RedHat disqualifyed for jumpping the gun...
Microsoft had a hand in injurting or crushing thies companys.. your right about that.
However your trying to list larg software companys Microsoft crushed.. you made some mistakes...
Apple: Hardware company... not a software company
Borland: The first mistake they made was getting out of many of the industrys they were in and focused only on software develupment tools as they were making a lot of money.
They dropped out of busness software and games markets..
Today software develupment tools are not doing so well (Microsoft and FSF are both to blame for that) and games are where the money is today.
Microsoft took them down by Borland set themselfs up for the takedown.
Corel is intresting.. They kinda come precrushed.. They buy out software titles Microsoft pushed off the market and push them back onto the market.
They take a beating from Microsoft but they picked the fight against Microsoft not the other way around.
Netscape: Netscape would like to clame they were wildly successful but... First compeating against free titles Mosaic and Lynx and winning.. shortly after they have IE to compeate with...
Losing larg amounts of money for a long time...
Being well known isn't enough for me to call a company "Big" they need to be profitable and Netscape never was..
Novel: Atari syndrom.. 1980s LAN technology.. Novels time came and left.
Microsoft is beating them up.. however they were dead allready.. They were a big company but they are there own victoms.. Microsofts just playing the role of Kvorkian...
Oracle: Atari syndrom waiting for a place to happen... 2000 technology.. It's current.. but thats today and they are ultrafocused.
Eventually somebody is going to overtake them or worse... the technology will simply become obsolete.
Examples of this.. I myself am writing a web forum like Slashcode.. I don't use an SQL server.. with SQL cracks and problems Slashdot has with MySQL some companys would be better off using a more ZenToe.cgi approch instead of an SQL server.
IBM is a hardware company again... When Microsoft went after them they had allready been crushed as a result of it's own monopolistic practices comming to haunt them. IBM was at a disadvantage and Microsoft used it for all it's worth.
Sun is a hardware vender...
Adobe... a very strange company... I'd say they were Netscape but they are proffitable and well.. strange...
Mark them off as a larg software company...
For the most part larg software companys at one time never did get very big. Hardware companys needed them but they were never big enough to run the show.
Microsoft has gotten very big over time and pritty much overshadows everyone and everything. Quite a few "Small" software companys went from big to small by simply staying the size they have allways been. They were big becouse thats how big software companys got. They are small becouse Microsoft is much larger.
Basicly Microsoft is bigger than everyone else becouse nobody else has ever been that big before...
Not in software...
"I don't know anybody getting rich in software" Not an exact quote.. but something to this effect was said once by Bill Gates.
It's still true today... excluding Gates.. nobody is getting rich on software alone... (Games have risen to the point where the artwork is as importent as the software itself.. maybe more so.. so game companys are software art companys today)
Corel (Like it or not) is a Linux company.. (Spoken Line-nuks BTW not the Torvolian Len-icks as it should be)
The problem with Corel is well still "Mass product" I should say they are "Herbert" (Taken from the Star Trek eppisode where space "Hippys" go off to find eden.. probably a pre-Trek refrence to something I myself am not familure)
Anyway.. so they kinda are the Linux counterpart to Microsoft.. stiff... and umm "Herbert":)
Anyway... They can not survive with Microsoft Windows.. They've got no choice but to sell "Line-uks" software..
They will be like Hotmail to Microsoft... Hotmail (Becouse of the way Hotmail is set up) will not easly move from BSD to Windows... It can be done but ohh painful... The service isn't effected it's just the code is all BSD hardcoded and non-portable to something as alien as Windows.
Corels software is still Windows but eventually they'll need to code Linux and backport to Windows.. if they support Windows at all.
Microsoft probably dosn't have the arm to force them to go 100% Windows but if they did Corel would sink..
Corels software basicly compeates head to head with Microsoft software and on Windows that spells death.. on Linux that spells life...
The synister twist... Microsoft may eventually need to help Corel support Linux in order for Corel to survive and Microsoft get a return on investment...
One good thing about "Herbert"s is they talk the same language.. If Corel needs something from Microsoft they'll find the correct channels to go through.. any unusual efforts Corel will just do it becouse that is the procedure.. They don't care..
Ok to try to give you an idea of the logic...
Most geeks occasionally catch themselfs in thinking "Why dosn't he just fix the code?" and of course you go "Du he's a user he can't code he dosn't know how".
Now for a "Herbert" jumpping through hoops is easy.. they do it all the time. So for them filling out form 265a in triplicate.. eat the first two and send in the third with a blank sheat of paper and add a postit saying "I am the eggman" isn't asking for much at all becouse they can do it in 30 seconds.
So where as we might not find the secret back door and give the proper hand shake to get form 265a Corel would... Get Microsofts own enegnears to write an open source "Windows Runtime" for Linux (In short thats what Wine is.. Microsoft made one for Dos years ago.. brain dead easy sence it was just Windows stripped down).
Or better yet... just include a Unix compatability kit into Windows.. then Corel can just write Linux software and recompile on Windows (and Solarus, BSD etc)
On the other hand.. if Microsoft just gets Corel to go pure Windows.. get ready for but Ms-FUD and the counter FUD..:)
Ms-Fud: See Linux isn't ready for the big market Corel had to come back to us
Counter Fud: Oh yeah I see that... look how much better Corel is doing now that they are selling to the Windows market (as Corels stocks plumet.. Corels products don't sell.. Corel basicly enters a "COMA" stage).
I doupt Microsoft would try it thow... but if they did Corel is in the unique position of dying if they dump Linux
Slashdot Mirror
I say we run a test on a 486 running Windows 95 with 16 meg ram
vs Linux running on a quad Xeon with 1 gig ram.
disable the 486 CPU cache...
Can anyone come up with some tests we can do that Linux dose BLINDINGLY FAST and Windows CRAWLS at?
I know some of you would say "Anything" but I mean.. something Windows dose especally bad that Linux dose especally well...
(I don't use Windows byond trying to understand it so I don't know what makes it slow down)
>Check again and stop being so defensive
What? You open with "Bullshit" and close with "Don't be defensive?" Cripes...
Me thinks you get this advice a lot... well nows not the time.. be defesnive... this is a deate.. not a tea party...
>99% of IBM's advertising for OS/2 touted it's multitasking and robustness (in obvious comparison to Windows)
What IBM shouldn't advertise the strongest points of OS/2?
And where was IBM when the "Bug free" Windows 95 turnned out worse than OS/2 Warp (Allready taking a huge publicity beating)...
Given the chance IBM just backed off and hid.
At the same time Apple went on the attack.
(I never saw the "Better Windows than Windows" thing...)
> Microsoft defines the market for cheap internet servers? Microsoft defines the market for Unix systems? Check again and stop being so defensive.
As the joke gose "Unix.. is that a Microsoft product?"
Right now in the busness world "Cheap Internet servers" means Windows NT
Unix market?
Your trying to be cute.. Unix means high end servers... thats owned by Sun and Linux dosn't compeate...
>Look at any Apple marketing now and you will not find any direct comparisons to Microsoft products - this has little to do with the $150 million investment MS made in Apple and more to do with the common sense that it was just lousy marketing.
1980: Mac, Amiga, Atari, NeXT, Sinclare, TI, etc etc etc
2000: Microsoft and Apple and thats all
Your telling me all those other companys who left the market did better than Apple?
TI did better.. they had better things to do than sell computers...
But even then.. they liccens the NuBuss to Apple...
> Look at Apple - for years they flogged this whole Apple vs. MS thing, until they realized that it wasn't selling any more computers.
Apple attacked Microsoft 10 years ago...
10 years later.. aside from Linux.. they are all thats left.......
And Mac advocates continue to bash Microsoft to this very day...
You don't survive by ignoring the company your compeating against...
Microsoft defined itself by Digital Research in the early 1980s and by Apple in the early 1990s.. now they define themselfs by Linux...
We can only return the complament...
I'm familure with both psycology and marketting..
> The bad side? A tarnished Linux. Why? Because smart and curious people are wary of evangelists of any stripe.
If this were true then the computer industry is compleatly devoid of thies trates..
The survival of Apple due to Mac advocates..
The only reason the Amiga name means anything today is becouse of Amiga advocates.
The only reason Linux exists today.. Linux advocates.
The reason OS/2 Warp is dead.. IBM did NOT evangelise..
Slashdot itself is where it is by advocating....
The entire computer industry is an industry of evangelists...
From Sun Microsystems to Commodore...
This applys to cars as well...
I've found WV Bug and Rabbit owners to be increadably rabbid.. They remind me of Linux advocates...
What a sad shame thies advocates have sooo tarnished the WV Bug...
Yes people get emotional and fanatical..
Emotional attachment to tools?
I've known people who'd kill over tools...
More than that...
Try saying "Craftsmen sucks" to someone who has a set of Craftsmen tools...
You'll see seathing anger byond what you'd see in any Linux advocate.
Part of that is attachment.. part is just plain annoyence..
Let's say we are both looking at a smart sexy and talented woman..
Now I say she is ugly and dumb as a rock and can't do anything...
Again.. annoyence.. You don't know this person.. nither do I..
We just don't like it when people advocate as true what we ourselfs know to be untrue. (Even if we are wrong).
Often we justify our anger as just dispising lyers but the reality is often we purely wish to defend our own reality.
And I have found this holds true in all circles.
The people who really find Microsoft bashing annoying are people who prefer Microsoft Windows.
Users not attached to Windows in some way (emotionally, finantually or by friendship) aren't bother by it.
People bothered by Linux advocacy are those attached to ANY other Os. You need not be attached to Microsoft to be annoyed by Linux advocates. BSD users are probably FAR more annoyed as BSD really is a lot more reliable than Linux.
Now to add.. Don't confuse annoyence with Linux advocacy with annoyence with people who won't shut up. Everyone is annoyed by an idiot who dosn't know when to drop it and advocates are really good for that.
On one side I've rightfully had a boot placed to my skull over not dropping the subject..
On the other.. I've had to be polite far to often to far to many Microsoft advocates who allready know I'm an admitted Linux Zellot.
But most advocates learn to SHUT THE FSCK UP..
Don't do what Apple did and attack Microsoft do what IBM did and ignore them.
Apple attacked Microsoft while IBM sat around and did nothing...
As a result iMacs are in the stores.. OS/2 is not..
Some of Linuxes popularity comes purely from being an alternitive to Microsoft Windows.
Many users come to Linux by way of Windows.
Microsoft defines the market.. Linux defys that defition...
The alternitive to attacking Microsoft is allow Microsoft to define Linux...
Linux is the greatest threat to Microsoft and in turn Microsoft is the greatest threat to Linux...
Should we really turn our backs on them?
Is it really a good idea to ignore the greatest roadblock to getting Linux into market acceptence?
Rember... Right now any product not by Microsoft is an alternitive to Microsofts products...
AoL is still an alternitive to ISPs...
And AoL dosn't compeate with Linux in any way
Not "Every" distro..
Debian, Slackware and RedHat however have.
(The Debian CD I tried to install required so much information from me it seemed I'd need 5 years experence with Debian before I could ever get this stupid CD to install)
It depends on how cocky the distro people get.. Mandrake screwed up day one.. it took Slackware and RedHat years to make the same kinds of mistakes.
Debian seems to go overbord trying to PREVENT similer mistakes and end up bombarding the user with questions he can't answer. (the inverse extream)
But at one time RedHat and Slackware had a clean history...
It happends to them all.. the key is to GET ON THEM ABOUT IT.
Slackware wouldn't upgrade to glibc and they lost users over it.. They were not forgiven. They fixed the problem.
You forgive them they won't do anything...
So beat RedHat up over this.. Back off ONLY when they fix it...
If someone else pulls a stunt.. beat them up over it as well...
This is neat.. this is cool.. this kicks butt.
Microsoft has a history.. a known for doing "bad things" and we have come to distrust them by default.
What is likely to happen..
This will rock.. it was work great on Windows.. This will then be ported to Solarus.. and work great (But no one will try it) It will be ported to MacOsX and then MacOs9 and work GREAT.. (But the Mac people won't trust it enough to try it). It'll be ported to Linux.. Linux people will poke at it but otherwise leave it for dead. It will be ported to Amiga and ignored.. It will be ported to BeOs and then called despret.. It will be ported to BSD and BSD people will say "Not on my box" it'll be ported to AthreOS and even they won't want anything to do with it.
That is what I believe will happen.
I beleive Microsoft will honnestly attempt to make a cross platform system.. premote it and push it.
If Linus or RMS had a reputation for writing bad code GNU/Linux would not exist today...
This platform dosn't have much hope.. it dosn't matter how good or how cool it is.. It's masters have a really bad reputation and the computer world isn't going to forget that anytime soon.
To bad... this looks like it could be neat...
Maybe make yet annother language module for GCC core to go with all the other modules and that would pritty much handle your porting to all the diffrent platforms...
(PS no I'm just highlighting irony.. They aren't the same thing.. But like the diffrence between a motercycle and a truck the both get you from A to B reliably)
TheDraw was an ANSI text art/animation program used on BBSes in the 1980s.
It was basicly used to make ANSI text animated art (using color and curser codes and extended ANSI graphic text)
Someone hacked it and released it under a new version number.
The authors of TheDraw had to offer an alternet release version..
Then there is the Cyrex 586 and 686...
The Cyrex 586 was an enhanced 486 not a Pentium clone..
Now RedHat releases an unfinished GCC and gives it a version number...
Three issues come to my mind on this...
1. If it's not an offical release it should not be included.. if you need it wait for the offical release before releasing your distro....
Offer an update pacage with a warning "sticker" if you must but DO NOT RELASE A FULL DISTRO WITH ALPHA, BETA or worse PROTOTYPE SOFTWARE...
If the people writing the software don't think it's ready there isn't any reason to overstep the judgement of thies people...
Unless they can not be trusted to start with and in that case you shouldn't trust the software they write at all.. stable, prototype or anywhere in between...
2. Version stampping someone elses software is a big NoNo.. At best it creates a problem with the version numbers.. at worst it could create confusion.. if the GCC people didn't know they might release an offical release with the same number... a person could still think this build was a stable release and treat it as such...
3. The idea of releasing a distro with support (The busness modle RedHat selected) includes provided added value by dubble checking STABLE open source software using the standard closed source checks.
By checking prototype software your basicly bypassing the open source quality checks and going entirely with the closed source quality checks that give us such quality software as Windows 95.
I'd like to explain here...
Before Microsoft released Windows 95 they went all over it to find every bug. They did wide beta testing handing out CDs for free as well as using paid beta-testers. It was a very involved process.
Mostly this was sparked by the early OS/2 Warp release.. Warp had bugs.. Microsoft basicly hyped that Win 95 was bug free and they needed to make Win 95 accually meet the hype becouse at that time they belived if they failed then IBM (The masters of FUD) would flash FUD Microsoft into oblivion.
All this effort did NOT result in a bugfree Win 95. Shortly after release someone fould that Win 95 left remote access ON by default with no password. Microsoft quickly fixed the mistake.
(IBM didn't FUD Microsoft over this and thus was the death of OS/2)
The point of this story BTW is not how much Windows sux (Microsoft fixed the bug quickly.. Thats how it works in open source.. find a bug fix it quickly.. and thats what happend here...) but for all the effort Microsoft put into making Win 95 perfict they couldn't make it bug free.
In short.. if the people who write the software think it's bug free.. check it be sure.. if they think it isn't bug free... then don't include it...
and DO NOT give a release version number to an unrelased pacage.. give the test or built number instead.
But don't think your people can stablise prototypes all alone. Microsoft dosn't even think they can do that.. they went for a wide beta instead.. and even THAT wasn't enough..
Part of why many can produce consistently reliable and bug free software is that the software they write is very simple. But Windows isn't.. nither is GCC.. pacages like thies need a great deal of checks to be sure everything works as it should.
RedHat should not bypass this process to get a quicker release date.
Note (and I get to say this) this isn't flamebait..
:) I go through keyboards and I am extreamly lax about spelling...
:)
A little of both..
Hack it's the Internet...
I gotta learn to relax a bit more when people point out the obveous..
A better idea BTW is to e-mail me not post on Slashdot.. lot's and lots of people can't spell becouse english is a second language to them..
It's my primary language so I have no such excuse.. but then read my preveous comment about the education system and then look at my spelling.. Isn't it intresting the US education system says my spelling is good?
If your really good the word will get out with not much effort..
If you suck all the spam in the world isn't going to save your sorry rump..
Any website who belives it's ok to spam should be avoided...
Every revolution has a leader.. someone who is willing to lead the charg into battle... even if it's some nut running in his underware carrying a mop..
Free software dates back to... oh gezz 1950 at least.. when home computers existed as dreams as people attempted to build computers out of spare parts.. dead radios etc...
At that time the open source was the design logic everyone shared in hopes of getting a computer built.
But there was no real revolution before the 1980s. Before it was just a very loose nit community...
Then someone fed up with efforts to crush free software started the charg...
The community is old... the revolution isn't.. well 20 years is old.. but comparied to the community that dates back to the 1950s.. it's just a baby...
You know Microsoft will NEVER say "We started the home computer revolution".
And why? Becouse they are ethica? Ha not even
Becouse they are honnest? Nope sorry
Becouse they know not to cross the line? Buzz wrong answer...
The reason is they'd never get away with it..
30 years ago and even now someone will stand up and say "Bull shit"... and they know it...
RedHat made some importent contrabutions but they didn't start anything and everyone knows it.
One of many...
Al Gore will never live down his "I invented the Internet" and RedHat will never live this down...
Screw RMS.. screw Linus.. screw the half a dosen companys that came before us.. we started it...
RedHat will never live this down...
>The thing that worries me, I remember when M$ release the first version of IE, and thinking "there is NO WAY this thing can be a threat to Netscape". I certainly don't want M$ to become the dominant set-top box company...
The setup here was Netscape just went out of the way to push Mosaic off the market when IBM produced a browser built into OS/2..
Netscape delivered a blow to OS/2 by discontinuing Netscape for OS/2 when IBM did that.
Microsoft got the hint.. Netscape can not compeate with free software. So IE came along.
I've mixed feelings about this.. Is Microsoft pushing Windows or pushing free software?
I tend to think they are just pushing Windows based on nasty comments made of free software.. But then IE is built on a liccensed version of Mosaic...
In the game console market Nintendo, Sony and Sega are all nasty and evil mini-Microsofts. It's not the same. Microsoft isn't half as evil as some of thies companys however they failed to dominate like Microsoft mostly becouse they have other evil companys to deal with.
Nintendo knows how to create a monopoly and Sega knows how to bust it. This isn't the environment Microsoft can really dominate.
Microsoft has the power to beat them up but in the game world they know all the durty tricks.
In the computer industry Microsoft keeps saying "But everybody dose it" in the game industry.. The other guys say "Who me? No I'm not hidding anything"
It's really not the same world.. people have zero loyalty.. Your only loyalty is to the console you allready paid for... when it comes time to buy a new one you'll buy the one you like the best.
Microsoft may be attempting to gather brand loyalty by being GASP Nice Guys... Yeah I think they can pull it off but it's no easy effort.
Nintendo BTW really pioneared the "Carry us only" market stratagy.. Sega sued over it and won... No DoJ.. no conset decree...
And Nintendo kinda set things the way they are in the console game market today.
I don't think Microsoft can really beat the people who are allready in the console market with anything less that the best machine they can build.
After all... For Microsoft Inovation is copying everyone else...
For Nintendo inovation is develuping new ways to distory compeating companys.
Can anyone here tell I'm anti-Nintendo?
But I'll leave Nintendo alone becouse they don't control the market... No body dose...
I'd like to see Microsoft try to Embrace and extend this market... and not get sued by Nintendo, Sony or Sega...
Ok DC gave us CueCats for one thing..
Supprise.. we want to use it for that one thing...
We aren't compeating with DC or setting up an identical service.
Just writing the software for OUR systems to do pritty much the same thing it dose on Windows...
DC gave it to us and we use it.. Thanks for the GIFT...
Oh wait.. not a gift?
Yeah thats right.. we aren't allowed to use it becouse we don't run the software DC
I may suggest a new agreement... "If you write software to scan our barcodes it must do XYZ" Hay I mean I could scan it with an HP barwand.. why should it be a CueCat hmmm?
You'd be better off in the long run...
Your going after people who are just trying to support you.. Instead of a C&D just send a letter saying "Please make it do XYZ so our services are not bypassed"... hack.. e-mail the code changes you want and I'm sure they'll be more than willing to accomidate you...
(If you lose money we don't get anymore CueCats.. that's nogood for the people who just want to support your product and service)
So please... work WITH not AGAINST if you like the hacks.. then just say "We need thies changes so our product works correctly.. please?"
No begging... just be nice... if you gotta beg then send out the C&Ds...
We want to support you godammit... Let us use your product and service... gezzz
Did you know Hemos patented implus buying on the Internet?
And he also patented bad spelling... (I paid him a liccensing fee for my spelling.. really) and all kinds of stuff..
But now if this passes I'm gona have all Hemoses patents challanged...
Especally that bad spelling one... At least I don't have to pay per spelling error. I got the bulk rate..
It dosn't quite work that way...
There is a bit more of a maze to this to navigate.
You need to allready have your paied lobyests in place.
You have regulare events and invite a bunch of people... drop a few hints and leave them alone to enjoy the event.
Now.. next event.. invite people who did as you asked. Weed out people who went the other way.
Amazon and other Internet patent holders don't hold such events...
However Fortune 500 companys with no such patents have allready dropped hints that they like this bill...
Most busnesses oppose patents such as "one-click-shopping" becouse they can not compeate in a market where all prior art has been rendered invalid.
Thies patents are seen as gold mines to companys who have not allready become successful or are having problems.
The companys who don't want thies patents are the ones buying the politcians.
BTW.. local politicians are much easyer to buy and the process you listed is how you do it.
The problem is finding out about thies events as the people invited are usualy selected from a list of people who have given a great deal in the past and don't ask much in return.
The busness world has been bitching about patents on doing normal busness on the Internet for a lot longer than Slashdot has.
This was all happening as patents were being issued and the real impact was yet unknown.
But quite a few probably stood by and said "It's ok" and maybe issued patents as well.
At that point the patent office got flooded and it seemed like the patent office was rubber stamping patents.
All this before Slashdot ever knew what was going on.
I got wind of this in like 1997.
Anyway... Now I'm sure quite a few are complainning.
It makes doing busness on the Internet very hard. Every busness move requires a patent search..
Even for busnesses who have patents this is a pain..
They have been pushing for this for a very long time.
By the way it also allows introduction of prior art...
But like the biggest patent issue we have is for the one click shopping and isn't that a busness practace patent with a real world counterpart?
I forgot to mention.. part of the new law addresses this by allowing us to point out prior art the patent office is blatently ignoring and by banning patents on existing busness practaces.
It dosn't let us do anything about the "obveous" problem.. as long as they can get away with it they will use the deffinition of "obveous" meaning obveous to a hampster or someone who lived his whole life in a cave... That leaves out patents on fire and running on a treadmill.
The patent office has been ignoring larg segments of the process for a while now.
Even before Slashdot jumpped on this issue the busness world has published some consern that the patent office has been answering a flood of patents with a rubber stamp.
A lot of those patents were simply patents on existing real world busness.
The patent office treats the Internet as compleatly new and unique and ignores 20 years of Internet prior art and 30 years of BBS prior art. Not to mention prior art from other networks (FidoNet and WWIV Link)
Hyperlinking for example.. This was not exactly a new idea.
Annother example is one click... clearly obveous... but I'll go on.. There is prior art in the BBS world.. however instead of searching the history of online book store BBSes the patent office granted one click shopping.
The prior art would not be easy for you or I to get at however the patent office should have access to the copyright databank from years preveous when you needed to file your source code to get a copyright.
A program for one such program has a copyright in the 1970s.. at that time you needed to file your program to get a copyright.
While the busness is gone and the software not in use the program should be on record.
As I rember one of the features was to rember your credit card information and keep it on file so that it may bill your card automaticly as you went shopping.
Alternitively it could just ask you for billing method etc when you were ready to "check out"..
Very much like todays web malls.. and Amazon.. only all text and you navigated like a text advanture seeing vertual shoppers etc just like a game (In fact they had to add a warnning that this was REAL and you really would be billed for this stuff).
One of the items was the program itself..
For the most part it was an on-line book store with a few software titles and some nick nacks (like floppys with images printed on them... the truely original porn disks.. I never got them but I imagin the disk holes blocked the view)
Anyway... prior art.. only this vertual mall closed many years before Amazon openned it's doors.
The problem is not only is it obveous it's been done before.
Basicly BBS style online books stores did this. Exactly the same busness and everything however on a BBS.
Amazon basicly addapted commen BBS practace to the Internet.. fair enough.. They waited so all such prior art was dead and gone.. Fair enough.. they patented it...
The reason nobody did it on the Internet BEFORE now is becouse it's DANGEROUS.
The technology is not anywhere near secure enough to do something like this.
On the other hand it's not that hard to do.. A bit simpler than the way Slashcode or ZenToe.cgi keeps track of your sig file.. Add secure credit card athentication and you have one-click...
It's like a lot of thies patents lately...
And finnaly the artical comments that people are taking huge risks going into e-commerce.. more than anyone ever did before...
Well if there is such a huge risk factor... maybe it's not somthing you should be getting into to start with.
Redhat 7 should have never been released. It's a shot at being the first 2.4 distro out (out BEFORE 2.4 itself is ready).
Mistake...
It seems to me this was bottom up made to be a 2.4 system all ready to go. It's shipped before the pacages it relys on are ready.
I understand why RedHat 7 was made this way what I don't understand is why they released it NOW...
If this is a race... then declare RedHat disqualifyed for jumpping the gun...
Microsoft had a hand in injurting or crushing thies companys.. your right about that.
However your trying to list larg software companys Microsoft crushed.. you made some mistakes...
Apple: Hardware company... not a software company
Borland: The first mistake they made was getting out of many of the industrys they were in and focused only on software develupment tools as they were making a lot of money.
They dropped out of busness software and games markets..
Today software develupment tools are not doing so well (Microsoft and FSF are both to blame for that) and games are where the money is today.
Microsoft took them down by Borland set themselfs up for the takedown.
Corel is intresting.. They kinda come precrushed.. They buy out software titles Microsoft pushed off the market and push them back onto the market.
They take a beating from Microsoft but they picked the fight against Microsoft not the other way around.
Netscape: Netscape would like to clame they were wildly successful but... First compeating against free titles Mosaic and Lynx and winning.. shortly after they have IE to compeate with...
Losing larg amounts of money for a long time...
Being well known isn't enough for me to call a company "Big" they need to be profitable and Netscape never was..
Novel: Atari syndrom.. 1980s LAN technology.. Novels time came and left.
Microsoft is beating them up.. however they were dead allready.. They were a big company but they are there own victoms.. Microsofts just playing the role of Kvorkian...
Oracle: Atari syndrom waiting for a place to happen... 2000 technology.. It's current.. but thats today and they are ultrafocused.
Eventually somebody is going to overtake them or worse... the technology will simply become obsolete.
Examples of this.. I myself am writing a web forum like Slashcode.. I don't use an SQL server.. with SQL cracks and problems Slashdot has with MySQL some companys would be better off using a more ZenToe.cgi approch instead of an SQL server.
IBM is a hardware company again... When Microsoft went after them they had allready been crushed as a result of it's own monopolistic practices comming to haunt them. IBM was at a disadvantage and Microsoft used it for all it's worth.
Sun is a hardware vender...
Adobe... a very strange company... I'd say they were Netscape but they are proffitable and well.. strange...
Mark them off as a larg software company...
For the most part larg software companys at one time never did get very big. Hardware companys needed them but they were never big enough to run the show.
Microsoft has gotten very big over time and pritty much overshadows everyone and everything. Quite a few "Small" software companys went from big to small by simply staying the size they have allways been. They were big becouse thats how big software companys got. They are small becouse Microsoft is much larger.
Basicly Microsoft is bigger than everyone else becouse nobody else has ever been that big before...
Not in software...
"I don't know anybody getting rich in software" Not an exact quote.. but something to this effect was said once by Bill Gates.
It's still true today... excluding Gates.. nobody is getting rich on software alone... (Games have risen to the point where the artwork is as importent as the software itself.. maybe more so.. so game companys are software art companys today)
Corel (Like it or not) is a Linux company.. (Spoken Line-nuks BTW not the Torvolian Len-icks as it should be)
:)
:)
The problem with Corel is well still "Mass product" I should say they are "Herbert" (Taken from the Star Trek eppisode where space "Hippys" go off to find eden.. probably a pre-Trek refrence to something I myself am not familure)
Anyway.. so they kinda are the Linux counterpart to Microsoft.. stiff... and umm "Herbert"
Anyway... They can not survive with Microsoft Windows.. They've got no choice but to sell "Line-uks" software..
They will be like Hotmail to Microsoft... Hotmail (Becouse of the way Hotmail is set up) will not easly move from BSD to Windows... It can be done but ohh painful... The service isn't effected it's just the code is all BSD hardcoded and non-portable to something as alien as Windows.
Corels software is still Windows but eventually they'll need to code Linux and backport to Windows.. if they support Windows at all.
Microsoft probably dosn't have the arm to force them to go 100% Windows but if they did Corel would sink..
Corels software basicly compeates head to head with Microsoft software and on Windows that spells death.. on Linux that spells life...
The synister twist... Microsoft may eventually need to help Corel support Linux in order for Corel to survive and Microsoft get a return on investment...
One good thing about "Herbert"s is they talk the same language.. If Corel needs something from Microsoft they'll find the correct channels to go through.. any unusual efforts Corel will just do it becouse that is the procedure.. They don't care..
Ok to try to give you an idea of the logic...
Most geeks occasionally catch themselfs in thinking "Why dosn't he just fix the code?" and of course you go "Du he's a user he can't code he dosn't know how".
Now for a "Herbert" jumpping through hoops is easy.. they do it all the time. So for them filling out form 265a in triplicate.. eat the first two and send in the third with a blank sheat of paper and add a postit saying "I am the eggman" isn't asking for much at all becouse they can do it in 30 seconds.
So where as we might not find the secret back door and give the proper hand shake to get form 265a Corel would... Get Microsofts own enegnears to write an open source "Windows Runtime" for Linux (In short thats what Wine is.. Microsoft made one for Dos years ago.. brain dead easy sence it was just Windows stripped down).
Or better yet... just include a Unix compatability kit into Windows.. then Corel can just write Linux software and recompile on Windows (and Solarus, BSD etc)
On the other hand.. if Microsoft just gets Corel to go pure Windows.. get ready for but Ms-FUD and the counter FUD..
Ms-Fud: See Linux isn't ready for the big market Corel had to come back to us
Counter Fud: Oh yeah I see that... look how much better Corel is doing now that they are selling to the Windows market (as Corels stocks plumet.. Corels products don't sell.. Corel basicly enters a "COMA" stage).
I doupt Microsoft would try it thow... but if they did Corel is in the unique position of dying if they dump Linux