The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Miles Lane]

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Rik van Riel]

On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:

> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html

Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
of people ;)

Rik
--
Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
   "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"


		http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/	http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Daniel Phillips]

On Wednesday 20 June 2001 23:33, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
>
> Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
> of people ;)

Not to mention the GPL, which I can guarantee you, before today my mom had 
*never* heard of.

--
Daniel

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Rob Landley]

On Wednesday 20 June 2001 18:31, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2001 23:33, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
> >
> > Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
> > of people ;)
>
> Not to mention the GPL, which I can guarantee you, before today my mom had
> *never* heard of.
>
> --
> Daniel

Ooh, do I get to say "I told you so"?  (LinuxToday buried my submission way 
back under a blurb about caldera, but still...)

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-05-10-002-20-PS

Rob

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Rob Landley <landley@webofficenow.com> writes:

>Ooh, do I get to say "I told you so"?  (LinuxToday buried my submission way 
>back under a blurb about caldera, but still...)

And the quote of "stealing the TCP stack from BSD" is still wrong. 

And the web browser they have today derives from NCSA Mosaic as
prominently displayed in the "About" box of every single IE version
out. No TBL here. 

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 21 June 2001 04:50, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Rob Landley <landley@webofficenow.com> writes:
> >Ooh, do I get to say "I told you so"?  (LinuxToday buried my submission
> > way back under a blurb about caldera, but still...)
>
> And the quote of "stealing the TCP stack from BSD" is still wrong.

Everybody took the BSD tcp stack, including VMS and OS/2.  It was the first 
major lump of code they separated when AT&T started making legal threats 
around 1983.

Did I say stealing?  The berkeley people gave it away for free...

> And the web browser they have today derives from NCSA Mosaic as
> prominently displayed in the "About" box of every single IE version
> out. No TBL here.

You take microsoft's word for things?

Read this:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/january/new0122d.htm

Various other coverage:

http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/news/0120/22aspy.html
http://www4.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_587.html

And two years later, spyglass still hadn't learned their lesson:

http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1014310,00.html

Rob

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Alan Cox]

> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html > 

Of course the URL that goes with that is :
	http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp

Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...

Alan

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Larry McVoy]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html > 
> 
> Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> 	http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> 
> Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...

Which brings up an interesting question for us all.  Let's postulate, for
the sake of discussion, that we agree on the following:

    a) Linux (or just about any Unix) is a better low level OS than NT
    b) Microsoft's application infrastructure is better (the COM layer,
       the stuff that lets apps talk to each, the desktop, etc).

I know we can argue that KDE/GNOME/whatever is going to get there or is
there or is better, etc., but for the time being lets just pretend that
the Microsoft stuff is better.

What would be wrong with Microsoft/Linux?  It would be:

    a) the Linux kernel
    b) the Microsoft API ported to X
    c) Microsoft apps
    d) Linux apps

Since Microsoft is all about making money, it doesn't matter if they
charge for the dll's or the OS, either one is fine, you can't run Word
without them.  If you don't need the Microsoft apps, you could strip
them off and strip off the dlls and ship all the rest of it without
giving Microsoft a dime.  If you do need the apps or you want the app
infrastructure, you have to give Microsoft exactly what you have to give
them today - money - but you can run Word side by side with Ghostview
or whatever.  Microsoft could charge exactly the same amount for the
dll's as they charge for the OS, none of the end users can tell the
difference anyway.

I'm unimpressed with what Microsoft calls an operating system and
I'm equally unimpressed with what Unix calls an application layer.
For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong.  Seems like
there is potential for a win-win.

You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Alan Cox]

> What would be wrong with Microsoft/Linux?  It would be:
> 
>     a) the Linux kernel
>     b) the Microsoft API ported to X
>     c) Microsoft apps
>     d) Linux apps

Providing they follow the standards, the GPL and work with the community I
certainly have no problems with it. Its not really any different to using 
Wine.

It is clearly possible for a company to reform over time. IBM were the 
microsoft of a past age, and they seem to have somewhat improved since.

Alan

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[William T Wilson]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:

> For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
> and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong.  Seems like
> there is potential for a win-win.

I've been hoping for this ever since the rumors of "Microsoft
Linux" started popping up.  The thing is that it'll probably never happen
because Microsoft wouldn't be able to stand having any portion of the
system out of their control.

We have VMWare, I doubt you'll ever do any better than that...

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Khalid Aziz]

Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.

At the Linux SuperClusters 2000 Conference, MadDog and I were the the
only ones with slides done on Linux. Pretty sad!
 
====================================================================
Khalid Aziz                             Linux Development Laboratory
(970)898-9214                                        Hewlett-Packard
khalid@fc.hp.com                                    Fort Collins, CO

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Khalid Aziz <khalid@fc.hp.com> writes:

>Larry McVoy wrote:
>> 
>> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
>> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
>> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.

>At the Linux SuperClusters 2000 Conference, MadDog and I were the the
>only ones with slides done on Linux. Pretty sad!

The only sad thing here is the state that Office applications for
Linux are in.  

Before the last talk I did, I was wrestling for a whole sunny and
really nice saturday, where I could've done many better things that
sitting in front of a computer, with KPresenter and StarOffice on my
notebook to get at least some slides done. At 8pm I gave up, fired the
Win NT box of my wife and had about twenty slides done with PP in just
under two hours (I had the text and images ready on paper and had just
to create slides). They looked well on screen, on the presentation
beamer and printed in colour _and_ black and white. SO and KPresenter
both were able to do two of these four things.

My last LinuxExpo talk was also made with PP, but I did't have the
courage to boot up a notebook with Windows in front of all the Free
Software guys to do a "migrate from Windows to Unix" talk. So I took
printed slides. Yeah, call me a chicken. :-)

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Daniel Phillips]

On Thursday 21 June 2001 10:46, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> My last LinuxExpo talk was also made with PP,

This makes about as much sense as going to a cocktail party with nose glasses 
on.

--
Daniel

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Miles Lane]

On 21 Jun 2001 15:48:11 +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Thursday 21 June 2001 10:46, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > My last LinuxExpo talk was also made with PP,
> 
> This makes about as much sense as going to a cocktail party with nose glasses 
> on.

One of the mantras that get hammered into Microsoft employees
is "Eat your own dogfood."  Which means that people working
at Microsoft should attempt to use the company's products throughout
the day in order to surface problems and give incentive to those
folks to make things better.  Obviously, the "EYODF" work doesn't
kick in until there is some minimal level of functionality.

It may be that Linux/OSS office applications simply aren't 
useful enough yet for anyone to stomach using them throughout
the day.  It would be nice to see more Linux folks eating the
dogfood and making those applications better, though.

For my part, I test Enlightenment, Gnome, XFree86 and Mozilla,
in addition to Linux kernels.

	Miles

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Daniel Phillips]

On Thursday 21 June 2001 00:33, Larry McVoy wrote:
> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.

Bad example Larry, most of us do our talks with MagicPoint.  I'll probably 
use KPresenter for the next one, it's pretty slick.

I haven't booted Window in almost 2 years, not because I'm forcing myself to 
stay away, but because I haven't had the need.  And yes, I do word 
processing, make spreadsheets, charts, send emails, you name it.

--
Daniel

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Michael Bacarella]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 03:33:45PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:

> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.

I think this is an unfair generalization.

I'm not even all that clear about what PowerPoint is (I've never
seen it, ever). I'm guessing that it lets you display slides in
sequence, but that's just from what I've seen of MagicPoint, which
someone said at a user meet was a clone of PowerPoint.

(And yes, the talk given that day was in fact done with MagicPoint)

-- 
Michael Bacarella <mbac@nyct.net>
Technical Staff / System Development,
New York Connect.Net, Ltd.

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[chuckw]

> > You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> > of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> > your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
>
> I think this is an unfair generalization.

Not really. In Linus's book he describes that his presentations used to be
(and possibly still are?) done in powerpoint. In fact at one point he says
"thank god for Microsoft". Given the context, I'm not sure if he was
joking or not. Not that it matters. I share Linus's opinion that it's not
an issue of hating Microsoft. It's an issue of keeping your energies
focused on progress because Microsoft will be irrelevant in the very near
future.

The momentum is on our side...

-- 

Chuck Wolber		| steward: "Are you the pilot?"
System Administrator	| pilot: "Yes, why?"
AltaServ Corporation	| steward, handing box to pilot: "Then this is for you."
(425)576-1202		| pilot, looking inside box: "Oh, it's a new altimeter."
ten.vresatla@wkcuhc	| 	--Chris Kennedy

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes:

>What would be wrong with Microsoft/Linux?  It would be:

Nothing, but...

>    a) the Linux kernel
>    b) the Microsoft API ported to X
>    c) Microsoft apps
>    d) Linux apps

>Since Microsoft is all about making money, it doesn't matter if they
>charge for the dll's or the OS, either one is fine, you can't run Word
>without them.  If you don't need the Microsoft apps, you could strip

... I would bet, they will try to give you a binary-only kernel module
that must be loaded or else the M$ Word .NET for Linux will not
run. Because they can not license check or something...

>For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
>and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong.  Seems like
>there is potential for a win-win.

3:1 that M$ thinks along the same ways. The (now probably called off)
split-up of M$ into an OS and an applications company would've
accelerated this move very much.

It's BTW, what I tell people around me since four years on a more or
less regular base... :-) (check older mails, you'll see that I got
lots of heat for thinking so).

I, personally, would love to see Office, Outlook and Quicken for
Linux. No, not clones. The real thing. Those are about the only
reasons I have to keep a blown up typewriter (aka NT Server) as a
pet. And getting these applications as competition, it would boost the
development and quality (!) of the free alternatives as well. I'd love
to see IE5.5 for Linux, too.

Devils' advocate position: If Linux would not be under GPL but under
BSD license, M$ may have already done so. But consider them porting
one of their monster applications and release it just to find out that
they've linked to GNU readline somewhere because of an QM oversight. 

I'd guess, to them, the risk of having their core code base (their
source of revenue) "infected by the GNU virus" is just too high.

Hmmm. After all, they're already using FreeBSD. Maybe they will
release "Windows for FreeBSD" with Office. Now that would be an
interesting impact on Linux (I would be over there in seconds =:-) )

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 21 June 2001 04:37, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> Devils' advocate position: If Linux would not be under GPL but under
> BSD license, M$ may have already done so. But consider them porting
> one of their monster applications and release it just to find out that
> they've linked to GNU readline somewhere because of an QM oversight.

I said as much in an article to LinuxToday.  (They buried it under a page of 
commentary about Ransom Love, but they did post it.)

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-05-10-002-20-PS

BSD forked to death in the 80's.  Everybody from AT&T to Sun to IBM who saw 
money in it spun off their own incompatable, proprietary version.

If MS was currently facing BSD rather than LInux, they would have "embrace 
and extend"ed it long ago.  Hide half of office in the system libraries (just 
like windows), come out with a closed-source version, loot the open 
competition for any advances but don't share yours...

> I'd guess, to them, the risk of having their core code base (their
> source of revenue) "infected by the GNU virus" is just too high.

The GPL was designed to block embrace and extend.  It embraces and extends 
right back.  And it's torquing microsoft off big time.

> Hmmm. After all, they're already using FreeBSD. Maybe they will
> release "Windows for FreeBSD" with Office. Now that would be an
> interesting impact on Linux (I would be over there in seconds =:-) )

Just like AT&T did to free Unix in ~1984.  How long before it's "Office for 
BSD incidentally distributed with a closed-source copy of BSD" mutated into 
"yet another incompatable proprietary operating system, just with lots of 
unix code."

That wouldn't solve anything.  We've been through a few years with netscape 
as our only viable web browser on linux, how much fun was that?

Rember the ben franklin quote about exchanging liberty for safety.  Buying 
short-term gains with long-term sacrifices is a dumb idea.  Been there.  Done 
that.  Came here to recover.

> 	Regards
> 		Henning

Rob

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Michael Bacarella]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:25:15PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> If MS was currently facing BSD rather than LInux, they would have "embrace 
> and extend"ed it long ago.  Hide half of office in the system libraries (just 
> like windows), come out with a closed-source version, loot the open 
> competition for any advances but don't share yours...

Apple's doing it right now.

Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
the techies.

And it worked. For months, I heard nothing but how much butt
MacOS X would kick and that it'd be like Linux, but have a
better application layer.

Whatever.

No one says that now that it's out. As if Apple would
really try to appeal to us. :)

-- 
Michael Bacarella <mbac@nyct.net>
Technical Staff / System Development,
New York Connect.Net, Ltd.

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Alan Cox]

> Apple's doing it right now.

Hardly..

> Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
> they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
> the techies.

A company that seems to write 'you shall not work on open source projects
in your spare time' into its employment contracts is not what I would call
friendly or want to work for. Im sure its only a small step to 'employees
shall not snowboard' 'employees shall not go skiing' - all of course argued
for the same reason as being essential to the company interest

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 21 June 2001 18:49, Alan Cox wrote:

> > Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
> > they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
> > the techies.
>
> A company that seems to write 'you shall not work on open source projects
> in your spare time' into its employment contracts is not what I would call
> friendly or want to work for. Im sure its only a small step to 'employees
> shall not snowboard' 'employees shall not go skiing' - all of course argued
> for the same reason as being essential to the company interest

This IS the company that had the "I work 90 hours all the time" club with 
t-shirts and everything back under Jobs in the early 80's.  And far more 
recently, where at least one employee got in trouble for "thinking different' 
with a parody site involving famous serial killers.

The "Proprietary frosting" model is fine for leaf-node projects like games.  
But if the new layer is infrastructure other people are expected to build on 
top of, then what you're really saying is "I want slaves".

Rob

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Kai Henningsen]

landley@webofficenow.com (Rob Landley)  wrote on 22.06.01 in <01062207084202.00692@localhost.localdomain>:

> On Thursday 21 June 2001 18:49, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
> > > they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
> > > the techies.
> >
> > A company that seems to write 'you shall not work on open source projects
> > in your spare time' into its employment contracts is not what I would call
> > friendly or want to work for. Im sure its only a small step to 'employees
> > shall not snowboard' 'employees shall not go skiing' - all of course
> > argued for the same reason as being essential to the company interest
>
> This IS the company that had the "I work 90 hours all the time" club with
> t-shirts and everything back under Jobs in the early 80's.  And far more
> recently, where at least one employee got in trouble for "thinking
> different' with a parody site involving famous serial killers.
>
> The "Proprietary frosting" model is fine for leaf-node projects like games.
> But if the new layer is infrastructure other people are expected to build on
> top of, then what you're really saying is "I want slaves".

Hmm. This *is* the company that has at least one guy full-time working on  
merging their changes back into gcc (with the right Copyright  
assignments), and where the guy in question does discuss how to make gcc  
work nice with both Apple's application framework and the GPL clone of it.

Oh, and one intern working right now to improve gcc's errors-and-warnings  
code, because that's what the gcc list came up with as a task.

Sure, that's not many people in such a large company, but it's a vast  
difference from MS, and it's also a vast difference from the earlier Apple  
from the look-and-feel lawsuit age.

For a while, they also paid someone for working on Debian's packaging tool  
(dpkg) which they now use for Darwin; at the time, that guy was  
practically the dpkg lead developer.

And don't forget MkLinux.

Apple is not another Red Hat, but they're not a Black Hat either.

MfG Kai

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> Hmm. This *is* the company that has at least one guy full-time working on  
> merging their changes back into gcc (with the right Copyright  
> assignments), and where the guy in question does discuss how to make gcc  
> work nice with both Apple's application framework and the GPL clone of it.
> 
> Oh, and one intern working right now to improve gcc's errors-and-warnings  
> code, because that's what the gcc list came up with as a task.
> 
> Sure, that's not many people in such a large company, but it's a vast  
> difference from MS, and it's also a vast difference from the earlier Apple  
> from the look-and-feel lawsuit age.

Take a look at themes.org. They are basicaly trying to sue anyone who
makes something similar to their aqua.
								Pavel
-- 
I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Helge Hafting]

Larry McVoy wrote:

> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.

Never used powerpoint.  If I need slides I use a (linux-based) word
processor and a bigger font than for paper.  Or html if I need something 
more fancy than text.  Html works great, and is also nifty if I need to 
put the stuff on the web for later reference.  No conversion needed,
and readers don't need anything but the browser they're using.

Helge Hafting

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Jonathan Morton]

>You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
>of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
>your Linux talks in PowerPoint.

Or AppleWorks (Mac), in my case.  Or, if I wanted to be flashy, I'd 
make the slides up in CorelXARA (which originated on the Acorn and 
would probably run under WINE today) and move them to 
GraphicConvertor (Mac) for display.  I daresay it's possible to do 
all that under Linux, but I haven't found such readily-available 
solutions staring me in the face yet.

Incidentally, you don't need a flashy presentation to make an impact. 
I won a prize this month largely based on a presentation I did - the 
content was king, the slides were white-on-black text, and I 
stammered my way through the actual presentation (I'm not good at 
public speaking).  The close runner-up had done a big flashy 
PowerPoint presentation, was better at public speaking, but hadn't 
researched his material quite so thoroughly.

I use Linux for programming and servers.  I still use my Macs for 
regular day-to-day workstation duty.  That's the status quo, and it 
will only change slowly and with much effort.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
from:     Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail:     chromi@cyberspace.org  (not for attachments)
website:  http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/vnc/
geekcode: GCS$/E dpu(!) s:- a20 C+++ UL++ P L+++ E W+ N- o? K? w--- O-- M++$
           V? PS PE- Y+ PGP++ t- 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D G e+ h+ r++ y+(*)
tagline:  The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Richard Gooch]

Larry McVoy writes:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html > 
> > 
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > 	http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> > 
> > Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
> 
> Which brings up an interesting question for us all.  Let's postulate, for
> the sake of discussion, that we agree on the following:
> 
>     a) Linux (or just about any Unix) is a better low level OS than NT
>     b) Microsoft's application infrastructure is better (the COM layer,
>        the stuff that lets apps talk to each, the desktop, etc).
> 
> I know we can argue that KDE/GNOME/whatever is going to get there or is
> there or is better, etc., but for the time being lets just pretend that
> the Microsoft stuff is better.
> 
> What would be wrong with Microsoft/Linux?  It would be:
> 
>     a) the Linux kernel
>     b) the Microsoft API ported to X
>     c) Microsoft apps
>     d) Linux apps
> 
> Since Microsoft is all about making money, it doesn't matter if they
> charge for the dll's or the OS, either one is fine, you can't run Word
> without them.  If you don't need the Microsoft apps, you could strip
> them off and strip off the dlls and ship all the rest of it without
> giving Microsoft a dime.  If you do need the apps or you want the app
> infrastructure, you have to give Microsoft exactly what you have to give
> them today - money - but you can run Word side by side with Ghostview
> or whatever.  Microsoft could charge exactly the same amount for the
> dll's as they charge for the OS, none of the end users can tell the
> difference anyway.
> 
> I'm unimpressed with what Microsoft calls an operating system and
> I'm equally unimpressed with what Unix calls an application layer.
> For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
> and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong.  Seems like
> there is potential for a win-win.
> 
> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the
> fact of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your
> slides for your Linux talks in PowerPoint.

Actually, it wouldn't bother me at all if they did that. If they
didn't violate the GPL (i.e. didn't make proprietary changes to the
kernel and libc and various utilities). I guess they could make
proprietary hacks to X, which I wouldn't want, otherwise I expect that
normal X apps would become 2nd class citizens. If people want to pay
for M$ office I'd much rather see them using Linux underneath. That
way they have a decent OS and the chances of them being slowly weaned
away from M$ products as free alternatives become available (or they
get comfortable with the idea of free alternatives). Trying to get
people to change wholesale is a lot harder.

I suspect M$ doesn't want to do this, because while they could keep
flogging Office for a long time (I hear it's better than the
alternatives), they would find it harder to flog all the smaller
ancillary programmes, as there would be more viable alternatives.  I
expect M$ will hang on to the bitter end. There's also a lot of
emotional attachment to their OS which is driving their policy, I bet.

				Regards,

					Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current:   rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Alan Olsen]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:

> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html > 
> 
> Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> 	http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> 
> Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...

As well as:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/Apr00/WinUNIXPR.asp

where they announce distributing ActiveState's Perl 5.6 as part of their
toolset. (Which they funded the development of...)

Seems they are willing to use Open Source if it suits their purposes...

alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
 "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Paul Flinders]

Alan Cox wrote:

> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
>
> Of course the URL that goes with that is :
>         http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
>
> Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...

Do they include the source? There's a CD of source that you can buy
for $20 but gcc isn't listed

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
> >
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> >         http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> >
> > Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
>
> Do they include the source? There's a CD of source that you can buy
> for $20 but gcc isn't listed

I'm not sure if they are allowed to do that.  See clause 1 (c):

http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm


Rik
--
Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
   "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"


		http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/	http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Alan Cox]

> > Do they include the source? There's a CD of source that you can buy
> > for $20 but gcc isn't listed
> 
> I'm not sure if they are allowed to do that.  See clause 1 (c):
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm

Slight oops on their part, but then that license is fairly new. I don't
think it is aimed at the Linux world though. Microsoft are trying to prevent
something else - and its all about lock in again.

If they prohibit people from linking free software with their own libraries
it allows them to prevent cost effective applications becoming available on
their platform so they can continue to inflate their prices. In paticular
I suspect this is aimed much more at things like OpenOffice, MySql on Windows,
Mozilla and friends.

Of course in two years time no doubt "in the customers interest" it will be
Microsoft approved developers only , and a while after that nobody else will
be allowed to make apps for their product.

Alan

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[watermodem]

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > > Do they include the source? There's a CD of source that you can buy
> > > for $20 but gcc isn't listed
> >
> > I'm not sure if they are allowed to do that.  See clause 1 (c):
> >
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm
> 

Minor note:
     1) The above link is now gone...
     2) The above EULA was examined very closely by various
communications manufactures.  If the wording remains the same when the
library gets out of BETA there may be some interesting counter EULAs.

> Slight oops on their part, but then that license is fairly new. I don't
> think it is aimed at the Linux world though. Microsoft are trying to prevent
> something else - and its all about lock in again.
> 
> If they prohibit people from linking free software with their own libraries
> it allows them to prevent cost effective applications becoming available on
> their platform so they can continue to inflate their prices. In paticular
> I suspect this is aimed much more at things like OpenOffice, MySql on Windows,
> Mozilla and friends.
> 
> Of course in two years time no doubt "in the customers interest" it will be
> Microsoft approved developers only , and a while after that nobody else will
> be allowed to make apps for their product.
> 
> Alan
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

IP_ALIAS in 2.4.x gone?

[Alan Olsen]

Has the IP_ALIAS functionality been replaced by something else in the
2.4.x kernels?

Documentation/networking/alias.txt seems to imply that it still does, but
the string IP_ALIAS does not exist anywhere else in the entire source
tree. (Unless you count the default configs for non-i86 architectures.

There is a "virtual server" option in the kernel that ships with Redhat,
but I assume that this is a patch for something Redhat specific.  (It is
not an option in 2.4.5, unless I am missing something.)

How is binding multiple IPs to a single ethernet card *supposed* to be
handled under 2.4.x?  If the IP_ALIAS option is no longer valid, then the
alias.txt doc should be changed to reflect the new option.

Thanks!

alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
 "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman

Re: IP_ALIAS in 2.4.x gone?

[Alan Olsen]

I found the problem...

IP_ALIAS is no longer needed in the config.  I screwed up the init script
configs for it so it did not work as expected.

The documentation does not reflect that the alias behaviour is on by
default.

I will submit a patch for the docs that reflects this so others will not
get confused by that.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:

> 
> Has the IP_ALIAS functionality been replaced by something else in the
> 2.4.x kernels?
> 
> Documentation/networking/alias.txt seems to imply that it still does, but
> the string IP_ALIAS does not exist anywhere else in the entire source
> tree. (Unless you count the default configs for non-i86 architectures.
> 
> There is a "virtual server" option in the kernel that ships with Redhat,
> but I assume that this is a patch for something Redhat specific.  (It is
> not an option in 2.4.5, unless I am missing something.)
> 
> How is binding multiple IPs to a single ethernet card *supposed* to be
> handled under 2.4.x?  If the IP_ALIAS option is no longer valid, then the
> alias.txt doc should be changed to reflect the new option.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
> Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
>  "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
 "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman

Re: IP_ALIAS in 2.4.x gone?

[Erik Schoenfelder]

Hi,

>>>>> "Alan Olsen" == Alan Olsen <alan@clueserver.org> writes:

Alan Olsen> I found the problem...
Alan Olsen> IP_ALIAS is no longer needed in the config.  [...]
Alan Olsen> The documentation does not reflect that the alias
Alan Olsen> behaviour is on by default.

yes and sorry, you are absolutely right.  


Alan Olsen> I will submit a patch for the docs that reflects this so
Alan Olsen> others will not get confused by that.

great, this will surely help.  i've appended a first try how the
changes could be clarified.  please take this as a hopefully helpful
proposal (HHP for short ;-).

							Erik



--- linux-2.4.5/Documentation/networking/alias.txt-245	Tue Apr 28 23:22:04 1998
+++ linux-2.4.5/Documentation/networking/alias.txt	Thu Jun 21 01:41:45 2001
@@ -2,40 +2,43 @@
 IP-Aliasing:
 ============
 
+IP-aliases are additional IP-adresses/masks hooked up to a base 
+interface by adding a colon and a string when running ifconfig. 
+This string is usually numeric, but this is not a must.
+
+IP-Aliases are avail if CONFIG_INET (`standard' IPv4 networking) 
+is configured in the kernel.
 
-o For IP aliasing you must have IP_ALIAS support included by static
-  linking.
 
 o Alias creation.
-  Alias creation is done by 'magic' iface naming: eg. to create a
+  Alias creation is done by 'magic' interface naming: eg. to create a
   200.1.1.1 alias for eth0 ...
   
     # ifconfig eth0:0 200.1.1.1  etc,etc....
                    ~~ -> request alias #0 creation (if not yet exists) for eth0
-    and routing stuff also ...
-    # route add -host 200.1.1.1 dev eth0:0  (if same IP network as
-					    main device)
-   
-    # route add -net 200.1.1.0 dev eth0:0   (if completely new network wanted
-					    for eth0:0)
+
+    The corresponding route is also set up by this command. 
+    Please note: The route always points to the base interface.
+	
 
 o Alias deletion.
-  Also done by shutting the interface down:
+  The alias is removed by shutting the alias down:
 
     # ifconfig eth0:0 down
                  ~~~~~~~~~~ -> will delete alias
 
   		   		   
-Alias (re-)configuring
+o Alias (re-)configuring
 
-  Aliases are not real devices, but programs` should be able to configure and
+  Aliases are not real devices, but programs should be able to configure and
   refer to them as usual (ifconfig, route, etc).
 
-Relationship with main device
------------------------------
 
-  - the main device is an alias itself like additional aliases and can
-    be shut down without deleting other aliases.
+o Relationship with main device
+
+  If the base device is shut down the added aliases will be deleted 
+  too.
+
 
 Contact
 -------

problem with select() - 2.4.5

[Thomas Speck]

Hi !
I have a problem with reading from a serial port using select() under
2.4.5. What I am doing is basically the following: 

fd_set readfds;
struct timeval timeout;
int s;

serialfd = open("/dev/ttyS0", O_RDWR );

init_serial(B9600);

timeout.tv_sec = 2; /* ! */
timeout.tv_usec = 0;
FD_ZERO(&readfds);
FD_SET(serialfd,&readfds);

s=select(serialfd+1, &readfds, NULL, NULL, &timeout);
...

But s is always equal to 0 even when I am sure there are data to read.
If I use 

s=select(serialfd+1, NULL, &writefds, NULL,  &timeout);

(with the corresponding initialisation of writefds) it returns s=1 and I
can write to the serial port. I can see that since the lights of the modem
are flashing. 
I noticed that behavior since I tried to send some "ATZ" with the
write-function but I never got the "OK" back.

However, the same programme works under 2.2.19.

Any help, please ?

--
Thomas

Re: problem with select() - 2.4.5

[Thomas Speck]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Thomas Speck wrote:

> 
> Hi !
> I have a problem with reading from a serial port using select() under
> 2.4.5. What I am doing is basically the following: 
> 
> fd_set readfds;
> struct timeval timeout;
> int s;
> 
> serialfd = open("/dev/ttyS0", O_RDWR );
> 
> init_serial(B9600);
> 
> timeout.tv_sec = 2; /* ! */
> timeout.tv_usec = 0;
> FD_ZERO(&readfds);
> FD_SET(serialfd,&readfds);
> 
> s=select(serialfd+1, &readfds, NULL, NULL, &timeout);
> ...
> 
> But s is always equal to 0 even when I am sure there are data to read.
> If I use 
> 
> s=select(serialfd+1, NULL, &writefds, NULL,  &timeout);
> 
> (with the corresponding initialisation of writefds) it returns s=1 and I
> can write to the serial port. I can see that since the lights of the modem
> are flashing. 
> I noticed that behavior since I tried to send some "ATZ" with the
> write-function but I never got the "OK" back.
> 
> However, the same programme works under 2.2.19.

Probably I should have given the init_serial() as well; So here it is:
(it is basically the one from the serial-programming-howto)

int init_serial(tcflag_t baud)
{
        struct termios tio;
        tcgetattr(serialfd,&tio);
        tio.c_cflag = baud | CLOCAL;
        tio.c_iflag = IGNPAR;
        tio.c_oflag = 0;
        tio.c_lflag = 0;
        tio.c_cc[VTIME] = 0;
        tio.c_cc[VMIN] = 1;
        tcflush(serialfd, TCIFLUSH);
        tcsetattr(serialfd,TCSANOW,&tio);
        return 0;
}

Thank you for any help
--
Thomas

Re: problem with select() - 2.4.5

[Edgar Toernig]

Thomas Speck wrote:
> 
>         tio.c_cflag = baud | CLOCAL;

How about adding CREAD?

Ciao, ET.

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Wayne.Brown]

On 06/20/2001 at 05:33:45 PM Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote:

>You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
>of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
>your Linux talks in PowerPoint.

Not I.  The slides for my last meeting were done as TIFF files and I used xv to
display them.  Plus, the most recent documentation I wrote for one of our
mainframe applications was done with vi and LaTeX.  "What, in addition to the
printed copies, you want a copy of the Word document?  There is no Word
document.  But I'll convert it to Rich Text for you and you can take it from
there."  If my employer didn't require me to use them occasionally, I'd delete
every Microsoft product on my laptop.  It's not that I have anything against
proprietary software.  It's just Microsoft that I despise.

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 05:53:44PM -0500, Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote:
> Not I.  The slides for my last meeting were done as TIFF files and I used xv to
> display them.  Plus, the most recent documentation I wrote for one of our
> mainframe applications was done with vi and LaTeX.  "What, in addition to the
> printed copies, you want a copy of the Word document?  There is no Word
> document.  But I'll convert it to Rich Text for you and you can take it from
> there."  If my employer didn't require me to use them occasionally, I'd delete
> every Microsoft product on my laptop.  It's not that I have anything against
> proprietary software.  It's just Microsoft that I despise.

I did the slides for my last LUG talk in MagicPoint (apt-get install mgp, or
on rpmfind.net, or wherever, maybe even with RH, I don't know). Very clean
format - see http://kabuki.sfarc.net/daniel/netfilter/netfilter.mgp

-- 
Daniel Stone						     <daniel@sfarc.net>
<Nuke> "can NE1 help me aim nuclear weaponz????? /MSG ME!!"

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Jesse Pollard]

> 
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html > 
> > 
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > 	http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> > 
> > Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
> 
> Which brings up an interesting question for us all.  Let's postulate, for
> the sake of discussion, that we agree on the following:
> 
>     a) Linux (or just about any Unix) is a better low level OS than NT
>     b) Microsoft's application infrastructure is better (the COM layer,
>        the stuff that lets apps talk to each, the desktop, etc).

Not completly - the COM layer is (my opinion) part of what propagates some
of their security problems. What else would be capable of disabling a
cruser so fast (and take two hours to restart)...

There appears to be no functional difference between COM and CORBA
(based on superficial knowlege only) except specification availability.

> I know we can argue that KDE/GNOME/whatever is going to get there or is
> there or is better, etc., but for the time being lets just pretend that
> the Microsoft stuff is better.
> 
> What would be wrong with Microsoft/Linux?  It would be:
> 
>     a) the Linux kernel
>     b) the Microsoft API ported to X
>     c) Microsoft apps
>     d) Linux apps
> 
> Since Microsoft is all about making money, it doesn't matter if they
> charge for the dll's or the OS, either one is fine, you can't run Word
> without them.  If you don't need the Microsoft apps, you could strip
> them off and strip off the dlls and ship all the rest of it without
> giving Microsoft a dime.  If you do need the apps or you want the app
> infrastructure, you have to give Microsoft exactly what you have to give
> them today - money - but you can run Word side by side with Ghostview
> or whatever.  Microsoft could charge exactly the same amount for the
> dll's as they charge for the OS, none of the end users can tell the
> difference anyway.

Ah yes, raise the Mr. Bill tax... The DLLs ought to be less than half
the price of the OS .. after all, they are a small part of the distribution
and belong to the application(s).

If you attempt to find a full installation of NT (JUST the OS), it will
cost ~400+ dollars (US). If you then add Office, add an additional 200.
If you want program development, add another 200 to 600, maybe more
since I haven't looked recently.

For the most part, I wouldn't complain too much about their prices. If the
products would work. If they didn't have such horrible security. If the
"patches" supplied would also work and not introduce more and different
failures.

BTW, the prices are actually slightly less than what AT&T, SCO, and others
charged for pieces of a unix system when they were originally sold
($600 base os, $600 application development, $600 documentation workbench
all values approximate, from memory).

> I'm unimpressed with what Microsoft calls an operating system and
> I'm equally unimpressed with what Unix calls an application layer.
> For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
> and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong.  Seems like
> there is potential for a win-win.

I'm equally unimpressed by their applications - how many macro viruses
exist? How do they propagate? How many times do they change file formats?
How many patches are (re)issued to "fix" the same problem?

The biggest improvement would be that users could remain with a version
that works for them and NOT be forced to pay more money for the same
functionality (watch out for the XP license virus... also known as
a logic bomb).

> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.

Not by choice - I'm forced to use M$ crap because the conferences will
not accept anything else (yet another monopoly point). Personally, I would
prefer to use Applix, StarOffice, WordPerfect, FrameMaker, ... Only one
of which is "free".

I agree that M$ applications should be available. But until M$ quits
appropriating other peoples code and calling it theirs I, for one, don't
want to be forced to use them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > I'm unimpressed with what Microsoft calls an operating system and
> > I'm equally unimpressed with what Unix calls an application layer.
> > For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
> > and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong.  Seems like
> > there is potential for a win-win.
> 
> I'm equally unimpressed by their applications - how many macro viruses
> exist? How do they propagate? How many times do they change file formats?
> How many patches are (re)issued to "fix" the same problem?
> 
> The biggest improvement would be that users could remain with a version
> that works for them and NOT be forced to pay more money for the same
> functionality (watch out for the XP license virus... also known as
> a logic bomb).

What is XP license virus?
								Pavel
-- 
I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Lew Wolfgang]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Pavel Machek wrote:

> > The biggest improvement would be that users could remain with a version
> > that works for them and NOT be forced to pay more money for the same
> > functionality (watch out for the XP license virus... also known as
> > a logic bomb).
>
> What is XP license virus?

Hi Pavel,

I'm not sure it's like a virus, maybe more like a genetic defect.

This is Micro$oft's new licensing scheme that made its first
appearance with the SR1 edition of Office 2000.  I've been subjected
to it twice now, with Office 2000 and Office XP.  Windows XP will
use the same scheme.

It seems to be a multifaceted license manager that does the following
when installed:

1.  Sniffs around the hardware, building a list of what's installed.
    This serves as a "fingerprint" for the Pea Sea.

2.  The user enters the CD "key", a unique serial number for the
    software you purchased.

3.  A new encrypted string containing the sftwe key and the hardware
    fingerprint is now generated.  This new key must be provided to
    Microsoft where they then generate a third key based on the
    second.  This new key must be entered to "unlock" the software.

If this sequence is not followed, Office will run only 50 times, then
shut itself down.  (I bet it leaves "spoor" somewhere to prevent the
average user from just reinstalling from the CD.  I heard that
Windows XP will run only 5 times before shutdown without the final key.

Note that the manager encourages the user to use the automatic method
for sending the key to Micro$oft.  A form is filled out with name,
organization, address, phone number and such before a button is
pressed to send your personal profile off to the Borg.  The return
address has to be valid or you can't get the final, third key.
(In all fairness, they will allow telephone key transmittal that
can be anonymous.  This is what I did from a public phone booth)

So, Micro$oft now has lots of information about you.  If the
CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.
Further, if your hardware environment changes (adding a new
frame buffer, scsi controller, etc) the license manager assumes
you copied the whole disk to another computer and are therefore
a pirate.  It shuts down the package until a new key can be
obtained from Micro$oft, presumably after you convince them
that you aren't really a crook.  "I just added a disk!  Please
turn my Windows on again!  I promise to be good and send you
more money in the future.", can be heard across the land.

This whole thing will probably be good for the Open Source
Movement.  We won't have to "pull" users from the Borg,
the Borg will start "pushing" them to us.

Interesting times in which we live, what?

Regards,
Lew Wolfgang

RE: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[David Schwartz]

> If the
> CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.

	Do you have any evidence to support this statement or is it an assumption?
This is almost never the way such schemes are implemented. The policy is to
send the final key unless there's clear evidence of abuse (such as the CD
key being found on a web site or being reinstalled dozens of times from all
over the planet).

	DS

RE: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Lew Wolfgang]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If the
> > CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.
>
> Do you have any evidence to support this statement or is it an assumption?
> This is almost never the way such schemes are implemented. The policy is to
> send the final key unless there's clear evidence of abuse (such as the CD
> key being found on a web site or being reinstalled dozens of times from all
> over the planet).

Hi David,

It is something that I read somewhere.  If memory serves, Microsoft
will allow two installs on the same CD-key.  Note that this is
different from the old MS key manager, all you had to do there
was enter the CD-key.  There were no real-time checks on how
many times it was installed.

This http://two.digital.cnet.com/cgi-bin2/flo?y=eBwm0Hm1h0U0c7G0A4
says, "In the case of Office XP, people can install the software on two
computers, such as a desktop PC and a laptop. But the second
installation requires a phone call to obtain the 44-key unlock code."

Microsoft is apparently using this technology to enforce subscription
plans in New Zealand and Austrailia.  The software just dies if you
don't send in your mortita.

The question remains, "How many times will Microsoft let you install?"
I'll test the process starting on Monday.  I have an Office XP that
has been installed once.  I'll try it again without giving my name
and keep trying until I reach the limit.  I'll say that I'm having
problems with my disk crashing or something.  I'll report my findings
here.

Regards,
Lew Wolfgang

RE: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[David Schwartz]

Lew Wolfgang wrote:

> It is something that I read somewhere.  If memory serves, Microsoft
> will allow two installs on the same CD-key.  Note that this is
> different from the old MS key manager, all you had to do there
> was enter the CD-key.  There were no real-time checks on how
> many times it was installed.

	You mean they will allow to overlapping installs. That is, you have
permission to run the software on two machines. This says nothing about
their enforcement scheme.

> This http://two.digital.cnet.com/cgi-bin2/flo?y=eBwm0Hm1h0U0c7G0A4
> says, "In the case of Office XP, people can install the software on two
> computers, such as a desktop PC and a laptop. But the second
> installation requires a phone call to obtain the 44-key unlock code."

	So the first time you install it, you can do it the easy way. After that,
you need to call them to get the code. For all we know, it's as simple as,
"I'm the purchaser and I'd like to install it again".

> The question remains, "How many times will Microsoft let you install?"
> I'll test the process starting on Monday.  I have an Office XP that
> has been installed once.  I'll try it again without giving my name
> and keep trying until I reach the limit.  I'll say that I'm having
> problems with my disk crashing or something.  I'll report my findings
> here.

	That's precisely the question, and we have no answer. It is becoming more
and more obvious to me that statements such as "If the CD key is used again
they just refuse to send the final key" are sheer speculation mixed with a
small dose of FUD.

	More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with each install,
especially if they are in close time proximity or widely varying physical
locations (or other suspicious patterns). If they find out that a key is
definitely being abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In
other words, they will cause great inconvenience for pirates and little
inconvenience for legitimate users.

	DS

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 07:50:36PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

> 	More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with
> each install, If they find out that a key is definitely being
> abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In other words,
> they will cause great inconvenience for pirates and little
> inconvenience for legitimate users.

Well, except that according to Murphy's law, it's obviously Sunday you
are trying to install the beast, and Microsoft offices are closed. And
on weekdays, you are working, so you don't have time enough to. (Yes
you can call on a weekday, get the code (provided they aren't
time-locked), and install the Sunday after, but Murphy's law again:
either you'll forget, either your disk will screw up your previous
installation on Saturday).

-- 
Lionel Elie Mamane
RFC 1991 (PGP 2.x) 2048 bits Key Fingerprint (KeyID: 20C897E9):
    85CF 986F 263E 8CD0 80FD 4B8C F5F9 C17D
OpenPGP DH/DSS 4096/1024 Key Fingerprint (KeyID: 3E7B4B73):
	9DAD 3131 3ADA F50B D096 002A B1C4 7317 3E7B 4B73

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Dmitri Pogosyan]

Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 07:50:36PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> >       More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with
> > each install, If they find out that a key is definitely being
> > abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In other words,
> > they will cause great inconvenience for pirates and little
> > inconvenience for legitimate users.

Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away - 
'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'

Why not allow police to search your car at every moment they wish ?
If you have nothing to hide, it is just a minor inconvenience, but how
many criminals will be caught !  Let us put permanent roadblocks at
every
entrance to the cities !

Or maybe we should introduce the law so you should report your
activities in written form every week to goverment authorities?   If you
just work, shop, sleep - you have nothing to fear ! Moreover there will
be a standard form - available on internet- so one can just tick common
answers in the convenience of your home !

And now I have to ask permission every time I put my own purchased CD in
my computer and explain and prove that I'm not a pirate.  Speak about
living in freedom.


-- 
CITA, University of Toronto         pogosyan@cita.utoronto.ca
60. St. George Street               tel:  1-416-978-7616 (o)
Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3H8           tel:  1-416-466-4028 (h)
Canada                              fax:  1-416-978-3921

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 21 June 2001 17:49, Schilling, Richard wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Landley
> > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 9:25 AM
>
> [snip]
>
> > BSD forked to death in the 80's.  Everybody from AT&T to Sun
> > to IBM who saw
> > money in it spun off their own incompatable, proprietary version.
>
> Microsoft also had a UNIX variant, but they gave up on the product . .
> .forget why.

Because Paul Allen got leukemia and quit the company around 1983.

Microsoft was founded by two people: Paul Allen (the techie) and Bill Gates 
(the marketer, whose father was a lawyer.  Gates was a bit technical in the 
8-bit days, but the last piece of code he personally wrote that shipped in a 
product was the text editor for the TRS-80.)

In late '79 early '80, they heard the rumors that IBM was pondering a PC, and 
Paul Allen went "any real computer will run Unix", so they got a license from 
AT&T and ported the sucker, calling it "Xenix".  (MS was a porting house, 
they made their living porting software (mostly BASIC) from one platform to 
another in those days, and porting unix was a big thing, so as the name 
implies: they'd port it anywhere).

And then IBM dropped the PC's tech specs on them after they signed 
non-disclosure and it said "minimum 16k of ram", and they went "okay, we need 
an embedded OS".  So they sent IBM to talk to Gary Kildall at Intergalactic 
Digital Research (I.E. Kildall's living room) and get CP/M, but the meeting 
fell through famously.  But Allen knew a guy who knew a guy who had reverse 
engineered CP/M from a store bought API manual as a summer project (Quick And 
Dirty Operating System).  They got a bank loan for $50k, bought it, and 
offered it to IBM.

Remember, the original PC the floppy was optional.  Dos 1.0 was only needed 
if you got the optional floppy, the in-ROM basic (which was the real reason 
IBM was talking to MS, the rest was just gravy) had support for the casette 
tape interface built into the original PC.  That was the default interface, 
floppies were an expensive luxury.  But microsoft had conditionally licensed 
to IBM their entire rest of their software catalog (from typing tutor on up), 
conditional on having a floppy drive to load them from.  They went out and 
got their own version of CPM so their application software deal with IBM 
wouldn't fall through.

And of course IBM had two sources for everything.  (As a big evil monopoly, 
they understood that being on the receiving end, at the mercy of a monopoly 
supplier, was a bad thing.) They even made Intel license the 8086/8088 design 
to AMD so they'd have a second source.  (And that's how AMD got into the 
clone business.)  DOS 1.0 and CP/M ran EXACTLY the same software, they were 
two sources for the same thing.  At first.

Paul Allen didn't give up on Unix, of course.  He knew the PC memory would 
grow and someday would be enough to run Unix, so in he set about making a 
migration path from DOS to unix.  The dos 2.0 manuals went out and said that 
DOS would someday be replaced with Xenix, and in the meantime here's a lot of 
unix functionality to get you used to it.  He added subdirectories (using \ 
instead of / only because / was already the command line option indicator.  
"dir /s".  In 2.0 the deprecated that and changed it to "dir -s" as the 
recommended method, to be unixish.)  Plus device drivers, pipes and redirects 
(hacked onto the CP/M base as best they could), and of course file control 
blocks were replaced with file handles.  The dos 2.0 manual eventual promised 
they'd give DOS multiple process support (multitasking).

Dos 3.0 was mostly based on adding new hardware support, specifically hard 
drives since the XT was coming out.  And it's about this time (1983ish) that 
Allen got sick and took a leave of absence from microsoft which he never 
returned from.  And Microsoft's technical side fell apart, but not until 
after they shipped DOS 3.

When allen left, two things happened.  1) Gates was left with absolute power 
within Microsoft and started succumbing to it.  (He was always a greedy 
bastard, but so are steve jobs, larry ellison, the heads of commodore and 
atari, and just about everybody else in the business.  Linus has his "i'm a 
bastard" speech too...)  2) The technical side of Microsoft imploded (at the 
mercy of marketing).  Xenix was unloaded on the Santa-Cruz operation almost 
immediately, and Gates allowed microsoft to be led around by the nose by IBM 
for the next five years or so in place of any in-house technical agenda.  
(And hence OS/2 1.0)...

Did I mention I'm writing a book on all this?  (The history of linux and the 
computer industry, going back to World War II...)  This makes me the only 
person I know who's excited about finding ~50 issues of "Compute" and 
"Compute's gazette" from the mid 80's at a garage sale.  An the university of 
texas's library has been quite a help.  So have the used book stores...

Still trying to figure out a title though.  I was thinking "Penguin Uber 
Alles", or maybe "The Story of Linux".  Of course Richard Stallman didn't 
like that title at all when I drove up to MIT to interview him.  (Then again, 
he tried to get me to write a different book. :)

> In reality for all anyone knows Microsoft could have used parts of the BSD
> kernel in their products, and no one would be the wiser.

Um, they have.  Check for references to the regents of the university of 
california.  (Grep for it.)

> The license would let them do it.  That for me is the big irony behind 
> Microsoft's situation.

Microsoft has parasitically benefited from other people's innovations from 
day one.  Its first product was BASIC for the Altair, based on a decade-old 
(at the time) project out of Dartmouth College.  DOS 1.0 they bought from the 
guy who cloned it (from CP/M).  Their spreadsheet was a straight clone of 
Lotus 1-2-3, word was a mixed clone of wordperfect and other then-popular 
word processors, they bought powerpoint, their web browser was based on code 
they licensed from spyglass (violating the terms of the license, of course, 
and then settling out of court for $8 million which probably came from their 
donut budget...)  Anybody remember the stacker lawsuit?

Name one thing Microsoft actually invented.  Other than Microsoft Bob.

Open Source is just one big resource-filled wilderness to be clear-cut and 
strip-mined as far as their concerned.  The only problem is there's this 
weird kudzu-like entity coming out of the rainforest called the GPL, that 
refuses to be easily digested, and is in fact expanding back into their 
territory..

> BSD is much more stable than Windows products,

Now there's a backhanded compliment...

> and Microsoft at any time
> can snap it up and integrate it into their product base - but so far have
> chosen not to.

I wouldn't be at all suprised if they did.  It'd fit in with the history of 
NT.  (Version numbers really approximate, I don't have my notes with me.)

NT 1.0: the inherited OS/2 1.x code ported to 32 bit mode, sort of.

NT 2.0: 1.0 didn't work so let's try porting it to the mach microkernel.

NT 3.0: that didn't work either, so let's hire Dave Cutler (chief unix hater 
at Digital research and ex-head of the VAX VMS operating system) to port VMS 
on top of the steaming pile of code that is NT.

NT 3.5: punch holes in the mach microkernel to get some performance, try to 
fix some of the more obvious bugs.

NT 4.0 stabilized (a bit) because dave cutler (and the team under him) was 
still around.  They hadn't yet again changed horses in midstream.  
Eventually, with the same team working on the same code, it's bound to 
stabilize a bit.)  Bloated a bit as well, but that's proprietary software for 
you.

And then Windows 2000 (NT 5) is proof that if you throw enough money at the 
problem and put enough coats of paint over the dry rot, you can eventually 
get someting with a stiff exoskeleton where the surface layers support the 
wriggling mass of decay beneath the surface.  It's a strange way to build an 
OS, but hey, if you're willing to waste 64 megs of ram on the lower layers 
you can have tons of scar tissue loaded in there you carefully try to avoid 
actually using...

> BTW - if I'm not mistaken, a Microsoft employee has actually been at one
> time or another on the FreeBSD core team.

Somebody who works at McDonalds may actually be a master chef in their spare 
time.  Doesn't mean it has anything to do with their day job.

> > The GPL was designed to block embrace and extend.  It
> > embraces and extends
> > right back.  And it's torquing microsoft off big time.
>
> Amen.

And we thank stallman.  Now if the FSF would just get a marketing arm... 
(It's not a bad word if it gets him to translate his "Don't call it Linux" 
campaign into something that expends political capital a bit more wisely and 
gets his message across clearly when he ISN'T preaching to the choir.) 

Rob

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Andreas Bombe]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:21:18PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> Name one thing Microsoft actually invented.  Other than Microsoft Bob.

I remember there being a web page where all of Microsoft's "innovations"
were listed and where they bought or stole it from.  The only things
that were really Microsoft's invention were, at that time, found to be
a) the .ini config file format (which has spread outside of the MS
world) and b) the annoying paper clip.

Does anyone have the URL handy?  Try finding that in a search engine...

-- 
 Andreas E. Bombe <andreas.bombe@munich.netsurf.de>    DSA key 0x04880A44

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[john slee]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 08:05:41PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:21:18PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Name one thing Microsoft actually invented.  Other than Microsoft Bob.
> 
> were listed and where they bought or stole it from.  The only things
> that were really Microsoft's invention were, at that time, found to be
> a) the .ini config file format (which has spread outside of the MS
> world) and b) the annoying paper clip.

i don't believe the paperclip was their idea either.  the original
company or product was named something todo with birds?  parrots maybe.

'tis a distant memory.

j.

-- 
"Bobby, jiggle Grandpa's rat so it looks alive, please" -- gary larson

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> I wouldn't be at all suprised if they did.  It'd fit in with the history of 
> NT.  (Version numbers really approximate, I don't have my notes with me.)
> 
> NT 1.0: the inherited OS/2 1.x code ported to 32 bit mode, sort of.
> 
> NT 2.0: 1.0 didn't work so let's try porting it to the mach microkernel.
> 
> NT 3.0: that didn't work either, so let's hire Dave Cutler (chief unix hater 
> at Digital research and ex-head of the VAX VMS operating system) to port VMS 
> on top of the steaming pile of code that is NT.
> 
> NT 3.5: punch holes in the mach microkernel to get some performance, try to 
> fix some of the more obvious bugs.
> 
> NT 4.0 stabilized (a bit) because dave cutler (and the team under him) was 
> still around.  They hadn't yet again changed horses in midstream.  
> Eventually, with the same team working on the same code, it's bound to 
> stabilize a bit.)  Bloated a bit as well, but that's proprietary software for 
> you.

Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?
								Pavel
-- 
I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Paul Fulghum]

> Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
> 1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?
> Pavel

NT 3.1 was the 1st to ship.

Paul Fulghum paulkf@microgate.com
Microgate Corporation www.microgate.com

RE: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Holzrichter, Bruce]

>Did I mention I'm writing a book on all this?  (The history of linux and
the 
>computer industry, going back to World War II...)  This makes me the only 
>person I know who's excited about finding ~50 issues of "Compute" and 
>"Compute's gazette" from the mid 80's at a garage sale.  An the university
of 
>texas's library has been quite a help.  So have the used book stores...

If your interested in old magazines, I had saved literally dozens of 80's
computer magazines, Compute, Computes Gazette, and some others.  I just
cleaned up the house, but may have some left.  I didn't think anyone was
interested in this stuff, and threw a bunch away.  I would be happy to
donate them if I have some left.  Let me know offline, as this sounds like
an interesting project.

B.

RE: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Clayton, Mark]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fulghum [mailto:paulkf@microgate.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:02 PM
> To: Pavel Machek; landley@webofficenow.com; Schilling, Richard;
> hps@intermeta.de; Henning P. Schmiedehausen;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.
> 
> 
> > Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
> > 1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?
> > Pavel
> 
> NT 3.1 was the 1st to ship.
> 

I still have my 3.1 package all boxed up in the basement.  I remember
impatiently waiting for its arrival.  What a disappointment it turned
out to be.

Mark

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Rob Landley]

On Friday 29 June 2001 15:11, Clayton, Mark wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Fulghum [mailto:paulkf@microgate.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:02 PM
> > To: Pavel Machek; landley@webofficenow.com; Schilling, Richard;
> > hps@intermeta.de; Henning P. Schmiedehausen;
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.
> >
> > > Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
> > > 1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?
> > > Pavel
> >
> > NT 3.1 was the 1st to ship.
>
> I still have my 3.1 package all boxed up in the basement.  I remember
> impatiently waiting for its arrival.  What a disappointment it turned
> out to be.
>
> Mark


I already answered this on the comphist list, but I've gotten in the habit of 
trimming linux-kernel from the replies.

NT 3.1 was the first release version to ship, but there had been a "beta 1" 
in late 1992 and a "beta 2" in 1993.  (This is why I said I needed my 
notebook. :)

NT 3.1 was obviously numbered that due to the success of Windows 3.1.  It 
didn't fool anybody, of course.  But it DID manage to confuse things enough 
to delay the release of Windows 4.0 (nee 95) for about two years while they 
tried to shoehorn NT into the consumer space...

http://www.jwntug.or.jp/misc/japanization/history.html

The dos death march:

Dos 1.0 they didn't mean to do until the CP/M deal fell through.

DOS 2.0 was documented as being a transitional product until the PC could run 
Xenix.

Dos 4.0 was going to be replaced by OS/2.

Dos 6 was going to be replaced by NT. 
Dos 7 (in windows 95) was the absolutely last version ever, swear on a stack 
of printouts.

Windows 98 tried to avoid mentioning the word "dos".

Bill Gates' evil sidekick winnie-me (You can just see him, shaved head, 
pinkie in corner of mouth, "I shall call it...") tried very hard to hide the 
presence of dos, actively denying access to command.com wherever possible.

What kind of odds are Lloyds of London giving on the presence of DOS in 
Windows XP at this point?  Just curious...

And any FURTHER discusson of this belongs on:

http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/penguicon-comphist

Really.

Rob

RE: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Android]

>
>I still have my 3.1 package all boxed up in the basement.  I remember
>impatiently waiting for its arrival.  What a disappointment it turned
>out to be.
>
>Mark

To say the least. The big thing in the current Windows OS's these days is 
FAT 32.
NT 3.1 and NT 3.5 won't even acknowledge this file system. And the ATAPI.SYS
file they used is a joke. The first thing you need to do when you install NT is
to install a new ATAPI.SYS that would at least see all your partitions.
Windows 2000 is far better in this respect, but it's a bloated pig. And I 
won't even
talk about XP. Minimum memory required for XP is 128 Megs.
And this license bullsh*t is just an insult to the consumers.
Thank the Heavens for Linux!

                              -- Ted

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Ted Unangst]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:

> Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
> 'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'

except that you are opting in, by purchasing the product.

> Why not allow police to search your car at every moment they wish ?
> If you have nothing to hide, it is just a minor inconvenience, but how
> many criminals will be caught !  Let us put permanent roadblocks at
> every
> entrance to the cities !

microsoft != government.  the us constitution only applies to government,
not private industries, and certainly wouldn't help you, in canada.

> And now I have to ask permission every time I put my own purchased CD in
> my computer and explain and prove that I'm not a pirate.  Speak about
> living in freedom.

you purchased it, meaning you wanted it.  nobody, except maybe your boss
made you buy it, and then you can always get a new job.  you have as much
freedom as you want, don't use ms products if you don't like them.

ted

--
"I promise you a police car on every sidewalk."
      - M. Barry Mayor of Washington, DC

RE: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[Greg Rollins]

This type of invasive marketing is why people aren't going to be buying MS
products.  (Not al people, just those who choose.)  If you want to be a MS
user, they have you over a barrel, if you *have* to use MS products, they
have you over a barrel.  Some folks, myself included, have to use MS
products to get our work done.  Our employer gives us no choice, but when we
get home in the evenings, that choice is modified somewhat.  I have 2
desktop machines, one runs Redhat 7.0, the other Window ME.  I use them for
completely different purposes.  The WinME machine is used for stuff at the
office, the Redhat machine is my programming machine, also for the office,
(but they don't know that).  Windows users have a choice.  They can stay
where they are, or move on.  This means learning Linux, the Mac, or buying
into MS new licensing agreement.  I've made my choice.  That's why I'm on
this mailing list.  The best thing for users to do, is let MS be who they
are, and if they want to get into this licensing scam that MS is forcing on
them, so be it.  Be quiet about it, or at least complain to MS.  Their users
are going to have to force them to change their stance.  It won't come from
the linux-kernel mailing list.

Greg Rollins
Network Administrator
Teksouth Corp.
205-631-1500

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Ted Unangst
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 10:39 AM
To: Dmitri Pogosyan
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.


On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:

> Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
> 'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'

except that you are opting in, by purchasing the product.

> Why not allow police to search your car at every moment they wish ?
> If you have nothing to hide, it is just a minor inconvenience, but how
> many criminals will be caught !  Let us put permanent roadblocks at
> every
> entrance to the cities !

microsoft != government.  the us constitution only applies to government,
not private industries, and certainly wouldn't help you, in canada.

> And now I have to ask permission every time I put my own purchased CD in
> my computer and explain and prove that I'm not a pirate.  Speak about
> living in freedom.

you purchased it, meaning you wanted it.  nobody, except maybe your boss
made you buy it, and then you can always get a new job.  you have as much
freedom as you want, don't use ms products if you don't like them.

ted

--
"I promise you a police car on every sidewalk."
      - M. Barry Mayor of Washington, DC

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/