Fred A. Miller wrote:

On Monday 05 June 2006 12:31 am, lerninlinux@comcast.net wrote:

[snip]

...

...

Unfortunately, this IS true.

Fred Ever read I, Cringley? While I do realize the site of www.Microsoftlinux.org is a joke, Cringley, made a valid point (between 2001-2003) that Microsofts strong point with their OS is the desktop interface. He suggested (blasphemy according to Microsoft) that they put their gui, on top of Linux, and build their own version, while incorporating, it's security features, and their proprietary codecs, and the like. In a way, it seems to me, they started down that path, once before, with NT/OS2, as it was trying to gain some posix compliance, and multiplatform capabilities. They would just have a better toolset with Linux (IMHO).

Yes, they would, but they'd also have a HUGE number of legal problems if they tried it........THANKFULLY. :) However, it's not an issue becuase Gates and Ballmer have egos larger than the Country and will continue to do it "their way." ;)

Why would they have any legal issues? It's perfectly OK to write proprietary software for Linux. Cringley wasn't the only one suggesting that MS's best move would be to write it's own proprietary version of X to run on Linux. It would be a pretty standard "Embrace and Extend" that MS used elsewhere... -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 07:25 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: . . .

Unfortunately, Cringley was extremely ignorant of the fact that security and stability problems were _never_ the OS, but the applications themselves. . .

Security and stability issues can occur in operating systems and/or applications. Patches, upgrades, service packs or name it what you want has been and will be part of any system administrator's life does not matter if it is MVS, zOS, Netware, Windows Server, Linux, Unix or anything else. Rudolf -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 07:51 -0400, James Knott wrote:

However, bad software engineering practices certainly don't help. Read up on how MS embedded IE into the operating system, just so they could claim it couldn't be removed, without killing the OS.

It's even worse than that! They put it at the _core_ of every major DLL in Visual Studio. You couldn't even build software with Visual Studio 5 + without tapping some MS IE. So even earlier Windows OSes _required_ MS IE to be installed to run newer Windows software. Even in Visual Studio .NET today, some of those DLLs assume "Chicago" security (i.e., none) and not Win32/NT.

This tactic opened up Windows to vulnerabilities, in that problems with IE have now become OS problems.

And virtually every Windows app since Visual Studio 5.

That has to be among the stupidest decisions MS ever made.

Yep. And they still haven't addressed it -- much less that the first year Microsoft said they "addressed security," most code auditors were shut out of MS application meetings. Why? Same reason as always ... "will push back release date" and they used to get overrides from management. I understand the Vista security engineering leads are extremely frustrated with this -- especially with the .NET being _completely_ignored_ by the tool and application developers. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

[ All this stuff really needs to go to OT ] On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 11:06 -0400, suse@rio.vg wrote:

That brings up an interesting diversion... Let's say MS decided to scrap their kernel and make MS/Linux (as opposed to GNU/Linux). That is, they write their own X server to run proprietary apps, but keep the low level GNU free.

This is technically _impossible_! Microsoft can't even do it with the .NET security model on their own platform because of portability issues from its Win32 bastardization.

Would MS still have a monopoly, in the legal sense? If they're not selling an "OS", but instead are selling a graphical environment, might not these thorny bundling issues vanish?

The Windows Executive and core system DLLs are relied upon by various OS services. It's far more engrained that you realize. It was bad enough in NT 3.51 Daytona, but got worse with NT 4.0 "Cairo" (which was nothing as promised). NT 5.1 XP _destroyed_ what was left of the entire NT security model, and SP2 is a re-hack of the NT 5.0 model with countless exceptions. It is _impossible_ for Microsoft to port to a GNU platform at all. They have a hell of a time just doing it to MacOS X. Let alone all the security issues would come with it. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 21:45 +1000, rudolf wrote:

Security and stability issues can occur in operating systems and/or applications. Patches, upgrades, service packs or name it what you want has been and will be part of any system administrator's life does not matter if it is MVS, zOS, Netware, Windows Server, Linux, Unix or anything else.

But UNIX, Linux, etc... applications and core libraries are _not_ written to _bypass_ the security of the OS. Most Windows applications _are_, even those written today. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

I was wondering what you guys think on this: Why should I a Linux fan care if someone else is using Windows or Mac OS X etc??? The only reason for me personally, for larger Linux adoption, would be so that all those oss developers can get money for their excellent work and recognition etc.. but after trying to convert people myself and actually saving their data from dead pcs they still go back to windows ... and I should care because??? I cannot force people to make a choice, and yes if I was a Novell exec I would know that I have to provide something for a customer that looks and works almost the same and better than what they have at a substantially lower price. This would reduce the training and other expenses the company would incur in a possible move to Linux. As a Linux fan I don't really care what the interface is that works for everybody and that it made 85.657% of the people happy and they were all smiles and productive even I am the 0.0001% on the chart I still like my FVWM or whatever window manager because that is what I want period. For me Linux is about choice and choice is always better then no choice and it is what will prevail on the long term. If you had 5 browsers you have a better chance of finding one that works than just 1. Someone posted here how MS had ignored good advice and they would not admit their errors/problems etc. this is exactly what kills a company and if that company has a monopolistic hold on a market this is the only killer. We are talking about software here where the step from idea to innovation is not that far or expensive i.e. it is not build a ship for billions test it etc. and send it to Mars. It is more: I have an idea, I have tools, lets make it happen. Turn around is quick, change is the nature of things and innovation happens quickly and is driven by collaboration and exchange. I watched a movie about MS and Bill and it specifically stated that the first GUI interface with email and a netwrok was created by XEROX, but their management did not think this was in any way important. Steve Jobs and Bill did though so they made some money of that idea. I think that is exactly what is going to happen to MS at one point they will loose site of the importance of things. Read the release decision for Vista you will see that they canned a lot of excellent ideas just to get it out ... this is not a life saving product we are talking here ... you could take time and make it better because if you just add a new background I would not want to pay more for it. Would you buy juice because the box changed and you can drink from two ends and pay more for it just because. You wouldn't right... so what do you do if you are MS well if you cannot provide features and you don't need to then you add hooks and punishments. You cannot see the lates 3-d effects for your movies on the old version, your new card performs worse etc. etc. Big companies are ruled by politics and internal career moves are not always benefitial to the product and when you have low competition those tendencies are increased. i.e. you think less and less of your customers cause they will by anything you have to sell, because everyone is doing it. Until one day they pissed them off ;) and they try linux and start advocating for an operating system :) My 0.001 % cent. george -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 16:29 -0500, Mark H. Harris wrote:

You should care because *nix (and particularly Linux *doesn't matter what distro*) is the better technology all the way around.

People are and should be free to choose what they think is better.

The less people use Windblows and the more people use Linux the more investment there will be in app ports,

I think there are plenty of app ports. The only things missing are the proprietary ones the average home consumer thinks they need. The larger issue of open source v. commercial applications are about _services_, not the applications. E.g., various services Intuit provides for on-line services that open source projects do not provide.

more generalized standardization of the *nix platform,

Actually, UNIX is very well standardized -- far better than Windows, even though it's from a single company.

better desktop quality,

Huh? I think desktop quality in Linux is top-notch. Although a .NET-Mono GNOME implementation might be a bit better than its current CORBA-Bonobo form.

fewer distro wars

The distro wars are largely because people bring the "versus" marketing concepts from the commercial world. I've literally seen people argue over an aspect of two different distros that were actually _identical_ in what they used for what they were discussing.

---not to mention better security

On the Internet, I agree 100%. The base design of the Windows executive -- which can't be changed without breaking 99.9% of Windows applications and associated automation -- is the reason for 98% of worms on the Internet. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Mark H. Harris wrote:

On Monday 05 June 2006 20:08, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

...

People are and should be free to choose what they think is better.

Nope. Take VHS vs. Beta... remember? The market (and free ?thinkers? everywhere chose VHS... Beta was better but we all got stuck with VHS... thank goodness for DVD. Remember Micro-channel? Free ?thinkers? everywhere chose ISA... and the rest of us got stuck with ISA although Microchannel was by far the better technology. Here we go again... *nix is better by a factor of at least 700... and we're all going to get stuck with Windblows because free ?thinkers? everywhere are buying it.... aaauuugh. Windblows must die.

You could license VHS for litlle, but not in the case of Sony Betamax. In this case, the consumers "chose" VHS for it's availability. VHS was more "free" that Beta: for consumers was the availability, for vendors was the possibility of making it. MCA was the same, closed as Betamax. It was expensive, even a MCA add-on card was expensive (license cost were high). People "chose" Windows because of it's availability and because it works out-of-the-box. I think that Windows it's great, Windows keeps "unintelligent computer users" in it's place. -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 10:30 -0300, Alvaro Kuolas wrote:

MCA was the same, closed as Betamax. It was expensive, even a MCA add-on card was expensive (license cost were high).

Actually, ISA had moderate licensing costs too, but IBM didn't enforce them and lost the rights to do so. That is a long and deep discussion. IBM only enforced the licensing on MCA -- but it was too late.

People "chose" Windows because of it's availability and because it works out-of-the-box.

No, people choose MS Windows and MS Office because Microsoft got control of the distribution channel by paying "rebates" for other software. Germany's Vobis went from 100% DR-DOS to 100% MS-DOS because Microsoft not only gave them MS-DOS, MS-Windows and MS-Office for free, but paid Vobis $14/unit to "refund" the cost of DR-DOS. The man who "made" Microsoft it is today is not Gates or Ballmer, it's Kempin. Similar deals happened with various vendors around the world that bundled DR-DOS, Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect for Windows -- "rebates" for cost. Or Microsoft would give MS-DOS and MS-Windows for free with a sub-$50 MS-Office licensing cost for OEMs. The numbers don't lie -- Microsoft gained over 90% of its marketshare in 1 year due to PC OEM bundling. Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect for Windows outsold MS Excel and MS Word (including counting MS Office twice for each) 2:1 on the retail shelf -- before, during and after Microsoft's control of the PC OEM channel. Because over 90% of sales are the PC OEM channel. Even 3dfx outsold nVidia handily on the retail shelf, yet it didn't make a dent in nVidia's marketshare because it got 90% from the PC OEM channel.

I think that Windows it's great, Windows keeps "unintelligent computer users" in it's place.

It's more like "uninformed consumers" in their place. Microsoft has just moved from the OEM to the Superstore in more recent years. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Sorry, I apologise up front for prolonging an OT thread that's well passed it's sell by date, but as a "European" (a Brit actually): On Wednesday 07 June 2006 01:31, Orn E. Hansen wrote:

  Lotus 1-2-3 was a relatively good product, but WordPerfect was begin "pushed" by many European vendors, by mistake.

Can't really comment. By the time I got into the workplace it was almost entirely MS. Ugh! Never used 1-2-3, or WP though I have used Notes fairly recently. A lot of people who were around then swore by WP. I believe legal firms still do prefer WP, simply because it better meets their needs.

They were, then, as they are today very "anti-microsoft". Europe chose platforms like Atari-ST or Amiga.  Both platforms were sold at sky-high prices, with little value.   They survived on the mere basis, that "anti-microsoft" people choice them, otherwise ... the little-green-desktop and the like were doomed.

I'm not entirely sure whether you are speaking to the business or home sector, but I think this is BS. The Atari-ST and Amiga were released in compact all-in-one units that could be plugged into a standard TV. At the time they were way ahead in capabilities compared to IBM compatible PC's. The desktop systems were pricey, but the all-in-ones were way cheaper. Probably around £500 for an Atari or Amiga versus £2K for a PC with lesser abilities. They never made an impression in business (except niche music and video processing), and before too long PC capabilities caught up with, then surpassed them. This was to a large degree due to the scale of economies of the massive installed base of business systems, and also a wake-up call that they lacked capabilities. After my Amiga years I used a Windows system, so I wasn't anti-Microsoft. I just came to loathe the OS by using it. I started dual booting, and then moved on to solely Linux.

  Europe has, plain and simple, been a case of "poor choices" from day one and continue to be.  They can't make objective choices, and that applies to a lot of fields, not merely computers.

And what, other countries haven't made poor choices? Aren't prone to making biased and detrimental decisions? Please! I don't want to get into bashing other countries, but Europe is not even in the running (in the horse racing sense) when you come to talk about a lack of objectivity! Sorry, but that is the first time I've felt the urge to defend "Europe", but that, combined with the denigration of two important systems that were revolutionary for their time, warrented a response. -- Steve Boddy -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Orn E. Hansen writes: [...]

This is precisely what I was referring to ... the price of a little-green desktop was in 1993 higher than that of a PC desktop (except for the cases of

Nobody but hobbyists were buying Amigas in 1993. CBM was essentially bust at that time.

the smaller game machines). When the amiga was first introduced, it had a 640x200 color resolution. Even when it entered the world, which was far less than the EGA which was already a standard in the PC world. The Atari, was mostly a black-and-white machine in the buisness world, with a 640x400 resolution, even into the 1990's. But a resolution equivalent to that of the Amiga in color modes. Europeans "stuck" to these platforms, even long into the 1990's ... which kinda says it all.

Reread Stephen's post and stop spreading nonsense. The Amiga was ahead of the game when it was introduced in 1985, but by 1990/1991, the gap had been eroded by a commoditised PC platform and lack of committment and bad decicions by CBM. -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:32:53AM +0200, Orn E. Hansen wrote:

Þriðjudaginn 6 júní 2006 03:08 skrifaði Bryan J. Smith:

...

I think there are plenty of app ports. The only things missing are the proprietary ones the average home consumer thinks they need.

The larger issue of open source v. commercial applications are about _services_, not the applications. E.g., various services Intuit provides for on-line services that open source projects do not provide.

One thing missing in Linux, is the rate of change of the kernel. I remember when there were some real Windows app ports to Linux, using wine. These aren't usable anymore, and for companies to maintain such ports on a regular basis is hard.

Because they shipped their own version of WINE. WINE itself has progressed and adopted to the various glibc and kernel changes over time and old apps running then, so they still work today with newer WINE. Sad for Kylix, true :/

This is the major thing that needs to be addressed, in my opinion. Somebody needs to take charge of the kernel, and some of the main gnu libraries, so as to make sure they are "defined" such that they will not break major applications on regular basis.

I think WINE is just a bad example here. Ciao, Marcus -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

/snip/

One thing missing in Linux, is the rate of change of the kernel. /snip/

What do you mean, "missing?" The kernel changes on a very quick time-frame, it seems to me. I remember

when there were some real Windows app ports to Linux, using wine. These aren't usable anymore, and for companies to maintain such ports on a regular basis is hard. This is the major thing that needs to be addressed, in my opinion. Somebody needs to take charge of the kernel, and some of the main gnu libraries, so as to make sure they are "defined" such that they will not break major applications on regular basis.

I was under the impression that Linus Torwalds was in charge of the kernel. Recently I read that he said that development should stop until all the bugs were killed, which I heartily agree with. The other thing, which has not been mentioned, is that when the bugs are killed, the development code should be removed, so things run faster, particularly boot-up. (Not that I boot the system very often; Linux runs forever. Some things are very difficult to deal with, however. I never got an answer as to how to deal with crazy Asian fonts in emails, for instance. This is probably one of the bugs.) (That's the main reason this email comes from Windows.) --dm -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 6/2/2006 -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

[ One of these days we'll get this to OT ;-] On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 01:58 +0200, Orn E. Hansen wrote:

Not everything in the Unix world was a good thing. Lot of "unix gurus" were a close consortium of self proclaimed geniuses. They were like the aristocrats, convinced of their own superiority, but to their amazement the world evolved outside of their window and before they knew, their console based multitasking environment was outdated.

Huh? Now you're just crossing concepts. Even OS/2 1.x had multitasking at its _base_ Protected286 and 386 model. It didn't matter if you ran CMD.EXE or Presentation Manager. The concept of a "time share" isn't solely UNIX, although UNIX made it commodity. Hell, you could even run X under OS/2! And OS/2 was Citrix's first remote desktop platform. HINT: The concept of "multitasking" is _irrelevant_ if a GUI is used or not. W and X have been around quite awhile, and I ran X as early as the late '80s -- _before_ Windows 2.0 was available. _Only_ Microsoft _required_ a GUI to get 386Enhanced mode (DOS/Win) or the GDI for apps to run multitasked in Protected386 mode (NT/Win). In fact, most of us coming from OS/2 to NT _bitched_and_moaned_ about the GDI and the _architectually_stupid_ decision Gates made. And Gates didn't stop there, he utterly _ignored_ Intergraph and NT 3.1 proponents on many items. Citrix saved Microsoft's bacon by virtualizing the GDI with MultiWin so NT could be "pseudo"-multiuser. Heck, Microsoft still does _not_ have an answer for GLX -- not even in Vista's WGF. And don't get me started on the SAM-SID and NTFS issues -- things that were promised to be fixed in CarioFS, that still aren't in WinFS (which isn't going into Vista anyway). The whole concept of a "Windows domain" is one hack to fix issues with NT's _core_ design (or mis-design), and that's what Windows networking has become today. Sorry, but it's not about "unix gurus" being aristocrats. It's about Windows _not_ being able to do the job for many applications. Not back in the '80s and not in the 21st century either. If Microsoft gives me a replacement for GLX and shows me it's better, then I'll care. Until then, I've gotta spend $500+ in just a software GLX solution for Windows when it comes for _free_ on Linux because Microsoft has _no_ replacement for it. I'm not just a "unix guru" -- I'm an OS/2 guru, original NT 3.1 _alpha_ tester, etc... I've got many legitimate complaints on the core design of Windows, and most everyone else -- including Microsoft's own architects (many who are no longer there) -- do too! On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 02:31 +0200, Orn E. Hansen wrote:

In the beginning MS-DOS was more or less free,

No, no it wasn't at all. Microsoft has always played the "bundle-the-overcharge" games since the original Altair's Basic. It's the entire foundation of Gates' control. Jochaim Kempin just found a better one in the mid-'90s -- the PC OEM distribution channel.

and one of the reasons DR-DOS died, was because Microsoft broke compatibility with it

No, Microsoft _never_ broke compatibility with it. Although Microsoft did issue a "warning" when DR-DOS 5/6 were detected under Windows 3.1. Gates' own e-mails talk about how superior DR-DOS was to MS-DOS -- how they could not only not break compatibility, but how DR-DOS was proving to be more compatible with older software.

Otherwise DR-DOS (Freedos?) was a good alternative.

Are you suggesting that FreeDOS and DR-DOS are related?

There is no choice between WordPerfect and Word ... it's a plain and cut case, always was.

Huh? You obviously didn't run Lotus 1-2-3 _for_Windows_ versus Excel at the time, or WordPerfect _for_Windows_ versus MS Word. Let alone some of us used the _first_ WYSIWYG -- let alone _first_ desktop publishing (DTP) -- application for Windows in Lotus Ami Pro. It was _not_ MS Word! The only people that thought Lotus 1-2-3 or WordPerfect were "behind" were the ones running _old_ DOS versions. Their company hadn't upgraded since buying their _old_ versions from years prior. So people were comparing Lotus 1-2-3 2.1 or 3.0 for DOS and WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS from the late '80s instead of Lotus 1-2-3 4.0 for Windows or WordPerfect 5.2 or 6.0 (depending on the year of MS Office release comparison) for Windows. For those companies that upgraded, they were quite pleased with both Lotus 1-2-3 4.0 and WordPerfect 5.2 or 6.0 for Windows. I know I was, 1-2-3 4.0 kicked Excel's butt (although Quattro clearly led both in formulas and advanced features), and WordPerfect 5.2 not only had a superior Grammer checker, but 6.0's layout was a crapload better than MS Word. It should be noted that I came from the DTP world, so I actually preferred Ami Pro and didn't like "word processing." Excel's cell layout -- even in 7.0 (95) -- used to cause me fits versus 1-2-3 4.0! And MS Word still doesn't have _any_ way to control tagging and layout -- something WordPerfect not only has always had, but perfected in 6.0. These are applications that were out in 1993-1994 -- _before_ MS Windows/Office 95 hit and during the time of MS Office 4.x. They were very _superior_ to Microsoft's software -- but many people didn't have them. And they were still running DOS versions, and people still assume 1-2-3 and WordPerfect were still only available for DOS at the time because of it. Because a lot of companies didn't upgrade for years. That was _until_ Microsoft made it a "free" bundling issue. I mean, why would companies pay $750 for 1-2-3+WP for Windows upgrades when they could get a brand new PC for less than twice that with a full office suite from Microsoft? That's why bundling works! You turn something that is overhead into a "capital expense" that can be depreciated over 3 years. Sold! The statistics don't lie -- Microsoft gained 90% growth in its marketshare in 1 year! And they zoomed to a 90% share in 3 years! Retail sales did _not_ budge -- Lotus/WordPerfect _still_ outsold Microsoft 2:1 (even counting MS Office twice for both Excel and Word). But that didn't matter -- because 90% of applications were being sold in Tier-1 PC OEM sales. This is _indisputable_fact_. There have been books written on this, as well as how Jochaim Kempin made Microsoft.

In the case of DR-DOS and MS-DOS it was not such a clear and cut case, DR-DOS had a lot of advantages.

So did Lotus 1-2-3 4.0 for Windows and WordPerfect 5.2/6.0 for Windows over MS Excel and MS Word, respectively. People who upgraded _saw_ this first hand! Companies that didn't upgrade then decided to buy new PCs with the Microsoft bundle.

Lotus 1-2-3 was a relatively good product, but WordPerfect was begin "pushed" by many European vendors, by mistake. They were, then, as they are today very "anti-microsoft". Europe chose platforms like Atari-ST or Amiga. Both platforms were sold at sky-high prices, with little value. They survived on the mere basis, that "anti-microsoft" people choice them, otherwise ... the little-green-desktop and the like were doomed.

"Anti-Microsoft"? Huh? I think you're talking about consumer issues -- _not_ Lotus or WordPerfect created ones. Don't lambast WordPerfect because they offered non-Windows choices alongside their DOS and Windows product lines -- they only offered them because clients wanted them. That's _not_ being "Anti-Microsoft" or "Anti-PC." That's offering what some customers want. Including Hospitals and Law Offices that ran SCO UNIX with terminals. Most of Corel's 20M customers are Hospitals and Law Offices. Why? They need a document format that lasts _verbatim_ more than 3 years. And in reality, Corel WordPerfect 10+ reads MS Office 7.0 (95) and 8.0 (97) _far_better_ than MS Office 10.0 (XP) and 11.0 (2003), all while being compatible with the newer formats too.

Europe has, plain and simple, been a case of "poor choices" from day one and continue to be. They can't make objective choices, and that applies to a lot of fields, not merely computers.

And that's the consumer. The "Anti-Microsoft" is the consumer. Has nothing to do with its competitors -- they just offer choice.

I think what made Microsoft, Microsoft, was the fact that IBM underestimated the PC market.

What made Microsoft -- over 90% of their profit in the late '90s -- was control of the PC OEM distribution channel. The PC OEM distribution channel is where over 90% of consumers get their base application software. Microsoft not only gave it away, but even paid "rebates." PC OEMs thought there was a "free lunch." Guess what? There wasn't! That's why I thought the consumer had only themselves to blame.

Microsoft was also a key player in many other aspects, which played into it's hands. If I remember correctly, the Basic used in Commodore machines, and the Apple to if I'm not mistaken ... was actually a Microsoft product.

Yes, a _direct_pirate_ copy of Digital Basic code that started with Altair's 8080, then Apple's 6800, then IBM's 8086. Gates' 1975 "Most of You Steal Your Software" letter is written from a hypocritical standpoint, because he stole the very software code he was claiming IP on.

I agree that many PC users are pretty lame, but then looking down on them is underestimating their value.

I'm not "looking down on them." I'm saying consumers only have themselves to blame. There is no such things as a "free lunch." That's why I had *0* empathy for Tier-1 PC OEMs versus Microsoft. They caused their own issues. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On 6/6/06, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

[ Ahh finally, Linux-centric! ]

For the most part, kernel interfaces have been the exact same from the standpoint of user-space apps since kernel 2.0 on-ward.

[Catching up on an old e-mail] Possibly true of the ABI, but not true of the API. (Application Programmers Interface.) /sys and /proc have had a lot of churn over the last several years. They are part of the kernel API. (A lot of the SAN/iSCSI/SATA scanning/removing/hotswapping functionality is only exposed thru /sys). They have added a few new fs types such as debugfs,etc. (I can't remember them all.) Further there has been a move to a dynamic /dev, and I can't recall the name but the disk naming conventions during bootup are changing also in products like SLES. Overall it seems to me the userland/kernel interfaces have been very unstable in linux for the last 3 or 4 years. I'm not sure if that is about to stabilize or not. Greg -- Greg Freemyer The Norcross Group Forensics for the 21st Century -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Þriðjudaginn 6 júní 2006 02:56 skrifaði Bryan J. Smith:

They've gotten by with little more than reading a HOWTO to setup a web server, a Samba server, etc... but never hit a major Linux integration project where they have actual Linux desktop to Linux servers.

I agree, wherever you look, it's all about Windows ... not "Linux". -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com