Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
With the release of Apache 2.0, will your web server be:
Apache 2.0 on Windows 0%
Apache 2.0 on Unix/Linux 16%
Apache 1.3 on Windows 0%
Apache 1.3 on Unix/Linux 5%
Internet Information Services 27%
iPlanet Web Server 0%
Netscape-Enterprise 5%
Zeus Web Server 5%
Other 22%
Huh? 16%

Votes: 18

 Attn: Yoshi

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Apr 17, 2002
 Comments:
Next time actually do a little research. And if you don't know what any acronym stands for look it up rather than resorting to making something up. Ah hell, everyone would still think you're an idiot.

Apache 2.0 Beats IIS at Its Own Game (eWeek)

diaries

More diaries by detikon
Trustworthy Computing !?!
If it ain't broke...break it!
Microsoft gives Korean developers little cause for worry
Microsoft [continues to fight a legal challenge in a consistent manner]
[ I just can't ] stop whining
Analysis of The Beast and a friendlier BG?
What is MS really saying?
Microsoft bloat and easter eggs?
Other Stuff
------------------

Microsoft Warns of 10 IIS Flaws
Apache Avoids Most Security Woes
IIS: Stay or Switch?
Microsoft Takes Security Defense
Trusting in Microsoft Interview with Microsoft CTO Craig Mundie
IE, Apache Clash on Web Standard

Software
----------------------

Known as the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer, the tool, which can be downloaded here , runs on Windows 2000 and XP systems and uses a version of the company's HFNetChk program to look for missing patches and service packs in Windows, IIS and SQL Server. It can also identify vulnerabilities and missing hotfixes in NT 4.0, Windows 2000, XP, IIS 4.0 and 5.0, SQL Server 7.0 and 2000, Internet Explorer 5.01 and later, and Office 2000 and XP.

Web Server Surveys
---------------------------------

Netcraft
Security Space

       
Tweet

Hey, guess what? (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 04:36:27 AM PST
No one here cares. Your trolls are inadequate, and will be ignored by the good editors, posters, and even lowly AR's of this fine site.


I believe... (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 05:01:11 AM PST
...that some other reader mentioned that this would likely be the best way to negate the stupidity of various diaries and stories submitted by Yoshi. Seeing as how posts made by Yoshi and osm are generally identical, it is a great way to discredit those from osm as well.

I myself am looking forward to similar stories/diaries which do the same in regards to diaries/stories/posts from elenchos as well.

I have to agree with detikon as well as many others. It's perfectly fine to fancy one piece of software over the other, but to resort to ridiculous claims based on general lack of knowledge is not.

Example:
HTML --
Yoshi >> Microsoft HyperText Movement Language Protocol

Real >> Hypertext Markup Language (a documnet format not a protocol)
    The document format used on the World Wide Web. Web pages are built with HTML tags (codes) embedded in the text. HTML defines the page layout, fonts and graphic elements as well as the hypertext links to other documents on the Web. Each link contains the URL, or address, of a Web page residing on the same server or any server worldwide, hence "World Wide" Web.

    HTML 2.0 was defined by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) with a basic set of features, including interactive forms capability. Subsequent versions added more features such as blinking text, custom backgrounds and tables of contents. However, each new version requires agreement on the tags used, and browsers must be modified to implement those tags.

    HTML is not a programming language like Java or JavaScript (if this, do that), rather it could be considered a "presentation language." HTML is derived from SGML, the Standard Generalized Markup Language, which is widely used to publish documents. HTML is an SGML document with a fixed set of tags that, although change with each new revision, are not flexible.

    A subset of SGML, known as XML, allows the developer of the page to define the tags, and HTML 4.0 and XML 1.0 have been combined into a single format called "XHTML," which is expected to become the standard format for Web pages. XHTML also enables Web pages to be developed with different sets of data so that handheld devices, with limited screen sizes, can download abbreviated pages.



Why? (none / 0) (#14)
by elby on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:43:28 AM PST
Why do you computer people always think the general public cares about your acronyms and pedantic corrections in mind numbing detail? We don't need a 250 word dissertation on the subject. Is it not enough that we are interested in discussing an issue?

It is no wonder that geeks have so much trouble with their social lives. If a discussion for you is preaching arcane details to anyone who dare make a mistake, you will lead a lonely life.

-lb


Because. (none / 0) (#16)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 11:21:06 AM PST
Why do you computer people always think the general public cares about your acronyms and pedantic corrections in mind numbing detail? We don't need a 250 word dissertation on the subject.

Because they will then use it, and as they will not know the critical details they will inevitably screw up and then will cry and beg for help. Sheesh. *sigh* But what one can expect from the individuals that so often don't even know that devices tend to work better when switched on.

Is it not enough that we are interested in discussing an issue?

Then be prepared to not do it only halfway.

It is no wonder that geeks have so much trouble with their social lives. If a discussion for you is preaching arcane details to anyone who dare make a mistake, you will lead a lonely life.

Because the devil is in the details. Because of someone mistaking one such detail - swapping the black and the white wire[1] in the fuse box - I once almost got fried; I ended hanging for few seconds between a heater that was grounded, and a computer chassis with 240V on it. Never underestimate the details. Details kill.

[1] Decades old norm (and decades old house); current colors are black or brown for live, blue for zero, and green/yellow for safety ground - don't dare to mismatch them.


dont underestimate the details... (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 01:36:01 PM PST
because HTML kills. That's why I use Macromedia HTML, instead. You should look into computers, they're really good at sparing people the drudgery of boring details.


 
I can't comprehend it... (none / 0) (#5)
by gzt on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 06:08:23 AM PST
'cause it's not in point-by-point rebuttal format. Try again next week, chief.


You are wrong (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by RobotSlave on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 07:07:01 AM PST
it's not in point-by-point rebuttal format

Oh yeah? What, are you stupid? Didn't you see the headings in bold text? You must be a total moron. Heh. It cracks me up. Lol.

Try again next week, chief.

Oh, sure. Like I should give you a week. Who knows how many uninformed might come by in the meantime and be led astray by Yoshis' stupid post? This has to be nipped in the butt, and us smarter hackers are the ones to do it. Thats right. You cant silence the truth. Information wants to be free.

--Ch33tah

Oh and PS its Linux not Lunix, k thx bye.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

die plz thx (none / 0) (#12)
by First Incision on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 09:04:21 AM PST
 
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

BOO HOO (none / 0) (#18)
by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 12:15:15 PM PST
WWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
This is just LinuX propaganda!! (none / 0) (#7)
by PotatoError on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 07:38:47 AM PST
YOu stInking self styled facist communist!!! Stop pting the LinuX everywhere I see. Go back to making pipe bombs and training suicide bombers instead.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Sorry to let you in on this secret (none / 0) (#9)
by Narcissus on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:31:42 AM PST
but the U.S. is the one who basically financed and trained the majority of todays terrorists, or doesn't anyone remember the Cold War when noone thought these little third world countries would ever use the power we bestow on them to come back at us. And for those who don't believe me or think it just happened in Afghanistan, try Vietnam, Cuba, and Iraq.
So don't blame that on the Communists. It is quite the opposite.




--------------------------------
Ok, who picked the flower???

Superpowers (none / 0) (#15)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 11:00:48 AM PST
So don't blame that on the Communists. It is quite the opposite.

The truth is, as it goes, in between. Communists were supplying money, weapons, and instructors as well.

Never trust the Superpowers, being it countries or megacorporations. Too much of power in too few hands never leads to anything good. Russian politicians/generals/businessmen, or American politicians/generals/businessmen, or Chinese ones, it's all the same scum and there isn't more difference between them than between black and white side in chess.


 
How about FreeBSD? (n/t) (none / 0) (#11)
by budlite on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:51:37 AM PST



 
A pipe bomb... (none / 0) (#8)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:05:20 AM PST
...can inflict only local, small damage.

Freely-available software (especially with source code) can destroy whole corporations. From one angle it can look like a form of industrial terrorism. From all the other angles, it is a freedom fight.

The most attention-worthy target is Microsoft. They used the same strategy (MSIE vs Netscape, and couple more less newsworthy cases) to sink their competition. Now the card is turning and they cry bloody murder. And, frankly, I somehow don't feel any pity for them.


I don't think so (none / 0) (#21)
by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 02:44:54 PM PST
Unless you mean that if a corporation chose to base their business model on giving away software they would almost surely fail I don't think you are correct. Please provide an example of how freely available software destroyed a whole corporation, other than the innumerable examples of the type I mentioned above.

I also fail to see how 'the card is turning' on Microsoft. Do you mean that they are losing market share? Is their profitibility declining? Stock price? I'm failing to see where they are losing ground to anyone, much less Open Source.


Then you thought wrong (none / 0) (#29)
by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 07:44:37 PM PST
also fail to see how 'the card is turning' on Microsoft. Do you mean that they are losing market share? Is their profitibility declining? Stock price? I'm failing to see where they are losing ground to anyone, much less Open Source.

Yes they are. On all count. Microsoft still maintains its desktop market share. However, it's not as popular in the server rooms. This is generally where it has been on a somewhat level playing field with Unix (now include variant such as Linux and *BSD).

I suggest that you take a look at the latest issue of Money. On the cover is...Bill Gates. In that issue they talk about how MS is only reporting in the single digits. You can also read about the $40 billion cash horde and their refusal for whatever reason to pay dividends.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Help me here (none / 0) (#34)
by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 09:59:25 PM PST
You state Yes they are in response to my question of where they are losing ground. Fine. You then state On all count, but then, then, you state Microsoft still maintains its desktop market share.

I am confused.

Also, lets not look at overall percentages of server OSs. Lets look at growth. Just because you have whacked the market up between a dozen iterations of the same operating system doesn't mean that you've gained anything. Unix is BSD is Linux. Its like Coke and New Coke, its all the same stuff and it is all of marginal quality.

Facts: 1) MS's market share is static in desktops. It is growing in servers. 2) Money magazine doesn't know jack about running a billion dollar software business, or else their execs would be on their cover sitting on top of a pile of money.


clarification (none / 0) (#36)
by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:13:59 PM PST
Yes MS is losing ground in all aspects. It maintains a high market share in the desktop market. It's about 90% compared to 95-98% a year to two years ago.

Facts: 1) MS's market share is static in desktops. It is growing in servers.

Actually it's quite the oppposite. I suggest you do a little digging. You find fading support for various "services" with .NET and Microsoft's confusing (and costly) new license is making more of its coporate clients look at lower cost alternative (price and licensing costs). If Apple is looking better.

2) Money magazine doesn't know jack about running a billion dollar software business, or else their execs would be on their cover sitting on top of a pile of money.

Funny, a lot of executives read the Wall Street Journal but you don't see pictures of them sitting on piles of money. Who's to say they not? Have you seen a picture of Money's staff? It's all about informing investors.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Please stop straying (none / 0) (#46)
by Icebox on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:35:02 AM PST
The Wall Street Journal has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.

Moeny is just another of a hundred cheap investment rags and anyone who bases their financial strategy on something they read in a gloss mag deserves exactly what they get: nothing.

As for their execs, I suppose that one of the few semi-respectable cheap investment rags might be the one to say that their wealth does quite approach that of Mr. Gates. I don't see any of them on the Forbes 500 list.


dumb duh dumb dumb (none / 0) (#50)
by detikon on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 07:22:27 AM PST
anyone who bases their financial strategy on something they read in a gloss mag deserves exactly what they get: nothing.

True. I would never take the advice of any publication. It's called RESEARCH. It's a nice little starting point. When I read about a company that's "going places" I research the hell out of it first. Use that tiny thing rolling around your head. Good advice for investment as well as for your next post.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

yeah but, ... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 10:41:12 AM PST
your RESEARCH predicts the market success of Lunix and failure of Microsoft. Forgive me if I'm not persuaded to liquidate my bus tokens and reinvest in a Lunix company that's solvent, if such thing still exists.


 
Scam (none / 0) (#10)
by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:47:46 AM PST
Could you please stop trying to scam the readership of Adequacy?

Yoshi linked to a number of different authoritative sources in his article.You linked to EWeek. Every time. That doesn't exactly constitute a well researched, balanced report (like Yoshi's was).

Next time you can save yourself a lot of time by just linking to Slashdot articles or comments. They both offer the same level of Open Source rah-rah bullshit.


I believe you should re-read his "work" (none / 0) (#17)
by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 12:12:08 PM PST
Yoshi linked to a number of different authoritative sources in his article

Yoshi linked to an unrelated half-assed medical snipet for "open sores" (his parody of Open Source). What else?

Microsoft Hypertext Language Protocol = HTML? Sorry but MS didn't creat HTML. HTML stands for Hypertext Markup Language. It's a presentation language not a protocol.

Most of the link text Apache 2.0, points to information about IIS from Microsoft's website.

It's Alan Cox not cocks.

He mentions Apache 2.0's long developement. Yeah and IIS pops up every 6 months to a year? Sorry but no.

Just ask any of the Lunix developers, like Alan Cocks, who have spent many years implementing rudimentary core operating system features that Windows has had for years, such as simple disk defragmenters.

When you dumbasses realize that Linux is not meant to be an open source Windows. It's a UNIX-LIKE kernel/OS. Windows and Unix are not compatible. Software must be ported. As for disk defrag WHOA! Unix filesystems hardly need to be defragmented every week. Hell the concept of what a defragmenter does is way off. It organizes clusters. Unix system also don't suffer from registry bloat. System restoration is much easier.

Friendly Error Pages catch up? Sorry but know. It's a simple little edit. Good luck with all the MMC bullshit in Windows.

Do I really need to continue? Are you aware of a little thing called common sense? Pick up a tech dictionary. Hll get one endosed by Microsoft. Use that tiny little thing rattling around in your skull called a brain.

As for linking to eWeek, I did. Why, because everything was there. I can pull up pretty much the same articles for you from The Register, OSOpinion, Newsfactor, Newsfourge, and even MSNBC.

Anyone wanna take a jab at the article?




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Why here? (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 01:11:49 PM PST
I think it is a little impolite to reply to my post with a point by point rebuttal of the article, but so be it. You have obviously been eager to post that so I am happy that I was able to provide you with the opportunity. Next time you might try to be more open about your needs though. All Adequacy readers are aware that Open Source advocates have an intense desire to write point by point rebuttals, every bit as strong as their tendency toward pedophelia, so there is no need to cast a veil of secrecy over it for us.

You complain about Yoshi's links to Microsoft. I cannot think of a more valid authority on the subject of computer software than the largest computer software firm on earth. He could have picked some lesser vendor, like Oracle, but then his points would not have been supported by the enormous research investment that Microsoft surely made.

Also, I do not generally appreciate ad hominem attacks, although I understand that when a person has little else at their disposal they tend to creep in to the conversation. Regardless, if Linux (I'll use your preferred spelling to stave off being called something worse than 'dumbass') is not trying to position itself as an 'open source' Windows, why does it copy nearly every design feature of Windows? When a new version of Windows is released the various Lenux 'distros' immediately start working on copying every new feature. Windows implements USB, Linux does four years later. Windows gets a Start button, Linux does four years later.

It is amazing that despite what you claim are the desires of the 'Open Source Community', Linux is the same thing as Windows was four years ago.

If Lenux is not being positioned as a Windows competitor, why has it been designed to be virtually identical? If Windows is so terrible, why make your favorite operating system exactly like it?


right.. (none / 0) (#22)
by DG on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 03:46:22 PM PST
i see you have no arguement other than to do ad hominem attacks.. you claim he attacks you then you attack him back how mature of you, ok how the hell is getting usb to work copying? prahaps the authors thought someone could use the drivers so their usb mouse would work in X? stop bitching about something like that, it's stupid.

ok you want to know why people don't trust microsofts answers? becuse they are not a neutral party.. they are a company being audited! why the hell wouldn't they say anything so they look good? i'm sorry but that just eather shows you don't care about the truth or you have your head in the sand
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Duh (none / 0) (#24)
by Yoshi on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 04:02:40 PM PST
ok how the hell is getting usb to work copying?

When Microsoft implements a feature into Windows, it's "copying" to you Lunix zealots. When Lunix steals proprietary IP features (like ClearType, TrueType, AntiAliasing and all of the other patented Microsoft innovations), it's something completely different to you clueless, brainwashed morons.

prahaps [sic] the authors thought someone could use the drivers so their usb mouse would work in X?

Oh, I get it. Steal Microsoft's USB and UPnP standards to power your USB mouse on X Windows 95? Isn't that ironic. It's like Mac idiots buying their Mac because they hate Microsoft, then running out to get Office X.

[I]'m sorry but that just eather [sic] shows you don't care about the truth or you have your head in the sand

Yes, yes, the "truth" to you Lunix fanboys is a completely distorted illusion from what the rest of the world sees. Unfortunately, you are too blind to ever notice how wrong you really are. My condolences.


ok.. (none / 0) (#25)
by DG on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 04:30:01 PM PST
Yoshi go read about computer history before you start spouting lies, usb was invented by intel not microsoft, aa wasn't invented by microsoft either, hell everything you listed wasn't, just becuse it's in windows doesn't mean it was invented by microsoft! get that through your thick skull, it is not copying microsoft shit, and i mean shit, becuse the two os don't work the same way, if you had any programming experince you'd know that, i doubt you do, propritary? no... ms holds nothing having to do with usb it's an open standard, by the way, if you follow your reasoning microsoft copied apple, becuse apple had the first usb. you make me sick with your faulty logic skills
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

correction (none / 0) (#31)
by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:22:10 PM PST
usb was invented by intel not microsoft

USB was invented by Texas Instruments with a funding partnership from Intel.

aa wasn't invented by microsoft either, hell everything you listed wasn't, just becuse it's in windows doesn't mean it was invented by microsoft!

Anti-Aliasing was not invented by MS. It's simply a process of "smart" blurring. Hell it's used in video games and graphics processors. Ever play an Xbox or PS2 game? Ever wonder why the edges aren't jagged? That's right AA.

Cleartype, TTF...think fruit. Apple that is.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

hey now.. (none / 0) (#39)
by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 01:49:04 AM PST
i try to look up sources, that source on wub happend to be intels site, it didn't list TI, so maybe thats a corp thing, i forgot apple invented truetype and other fonts, hmm don't like aa it slows stuff down too much consoles do it better
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

OK, I'm not against you, BUT... (none / 0) (#78)
by budlite on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 12:17:06 PM PST
...could you please learn to use punctuation, paragraphs and capitalisation?

Your posts have a tendency to be difficult to read.


 
Hello in there (none / 0) (#35)
by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:04:39 PM PST
Could you point out the spot where I attacked him personally?

He used weak examples, and I pointed that out. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem attack.

As for you, what does it matter why Linux stole an idea from Microsoft? They did and I don't see anything 'stupid' in pointing that out.

Moron. Put a capital letter in your post one time, if you OS supports such things. Idiot. Brush your teeth too.


uh nope (none / 0) (#38)
by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:26:26 PM PST
As for you, what does it matter why Linux stole an idea from Microsoft? They did and I don't see anything 'stupid' in pointing that out.

It's rather difficult to call it stealing when they're not Microsoft's in the first place. Not a single principle is specific to Microsoft operating systems. Hell even Windows raises a lot of questions. You know that MS claims to hold trademarks on a lot of generic word like Office. In fact their trademark is for Microsoft Office.

Seeing as how Microsoft did not create nor does it own any specific pieces of the GUI they use the specific parts are actually fair game. In many ways they can be considered open standards. Basically same concepts different names (Start button/Taskbar = WarpCenter (OS/2)). There are many things that window managers like KDE and GNOME offer that GUIs like Luna do not. Virtual desktops for one. So if you want to claim that these ideas are "stolen" from Microsoft then please do not forget to mention who Microsoft "stole" them from first.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
Umm yeah.. (none / 0) (#40)
by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 01:57:17 AM PST
Prove to me that linux stole from ms, other wise i'd like you to shut your mouth and stop insulting people, i've never seen anything on the web, in the news papers on tv or the radio saying anyone had stole from microsoft, i find most of the time microsoft stole copied or borrowed ideas from others, i get tired of you people who claim microsoft is good when you have no proof, i try to prove what i say and history alone shows whats right
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
double standards (none / 0) (#30)
by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:10:32 PM PST
When a new version of Windows is released the various Lenux 'distros' immediately start working on copying every new feature.

You could say the same for Microsoft. Generally though it comes much much later. Support for long filenames could have been in Windows since 1.0 yet Gates and Company could figure it out. Been in Mac OS since day one.

Windows implements USB, Linux does four years later.

I would say not bad for developers working with little to no help from devices manufaturers. Amazingly enough that is changing. However, let's not forget how long PnP was available with Macs and OS/2 before it finally showed up in Windows.

Windows gets a Start button, Linux does four years later.

You mean kind of like how it appeared in OS/2, then popped up in Windows 95? The "start button" taskbar, and most other element of the Windows GUI are not specific to Windows nor did the make their first appearance in that OS. You'll find that most of the design elements in GUI are basically standard. They are just implemented slightly different. Also the comment "Linx does four years later" is rather silly. Linux is a kernel. Do you mean Linux based OSes? Window managers like KDE and GNOME are not specific to Linux. They can be implemented across all unices. Hell visit Shell Extension City to find out about all the replacement shells for Windows. A good one is Qube.

I believe there are multiple post, diaries, and a mysterious disappearing story along the lines of MS innovations. So I'll take a page from those. Please name one innovation in Windows. Please do, so that I can tell you where it appeared first and what Microsoft copied even years after it was implemented.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

All right then (none / 0) (#37)
by Icebox on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:16:43 PM PST
I don't see what double standards have to do with anything, not that I am admitting that any exist in this case. Lenux is on trial here, not Windows.

Microsoft entered into business relationships with many of these companies you claim they 'stole' features from. They even had more than a small hand in developing OS/2, so I don't think it can be proven one way or the other whether an MS employee actually thought up the Start button or no. Hell, they own a sizeable chunk of Mac so there can't actually steal anything from them.

What companies has Linux partnered with? None. This might be the reason why I find no patents owned by Linux. If you want to know how much actual innovation a company is doing it can be found quite easily by looking at the patents they hold. Microsoft has thousands, not the least of which is their innovative and unique Windows Update.

As an aside: I have no idea what this shell thing is. I suspect it is related to the command line, which has been eliminated from the computers of non-geeks by Microsoft innovations in the GUI arena.


innovative? (none / 0) (#42)
by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:18:05 AM PST
you must be misstaken, windows update isn't innovative in anyway unix and linux had had that for years, infact debian is based off the idea, rpm uses it, the fact that microsoft owns stock in apple is irrelivent for when they stole from apple, it was near 20 years ago when they did, by the way yes linux has partners, like intel, dell, compaq, sun,apple, and many more. i believe windows can be on trial just as much as linux or more so, proof is well known how they ripped things from others
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

I don't think I can continue (none / 0) (#47)
by Icebox on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:41:11 AM PST
I can prove that Windows Update is innovative: The US Patent and Trade Office issued a patent to Microsoft for various parts of Windows Update. The US Patent and Trade Office is not in the habit of issuing patents to 'stolen' ideas, you should familiarize yourself with the patent application process, specifically a concept known as Prior Art.

You cannot possibly expect me to continue a debate a topic in which you, a guy who probably ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch, purports to know more about innovation than the US Patent and Trade Office.


Hey you, (4.00 / 1) (#49)
by because it isnt on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 06:12:54 AM PST
The US Patent and Trade Office is not in the habit of issuing patents to 'stolen' ideas

please take your libellous and scandalous comments elsewhere. The USPTO is world famous for issuing patents for anything and everything, even issuing the same patent twice to two different people, and is not going to be smeared by the likes of you.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Pantent (none / 0) (#53)
by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 10:22:45 AM PST
Name me the Patent, then i will believe you, you provide no evadince that you are right, you still keep shouting "I'm right becuse i said I am!" as if that makes it true, show me you can patent somehing like that, otherwise go learn to debate, you seem to think debating is sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring your opponent, then insulting them
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Here you are: (none / 0) (#55)
by Icebox on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 11:21:53 AM PST
It is probably in this list somewhere. I think it is this one but I could be wrong. I have things to do, I can't go rifling through patent databases all day.

Note the conspicuous absence of any patents held by Linux. The only result returned actually belongs to a subsidiary of IBM, and not Linux. See also Open Source. Essentially, you are trying to argue that Linux is responsible for some sort of extensive innovation, and yet it has received no patents of any kind? Insane. Microsoft holds nearly 2,000, and you are claiming that they are not innovative? Even further down the spiral.

Typically I have very little concern for the well being of my fellow man, but you really should get some help. Get on the state dole if you have to, but get yourself checked out. Really. No one is shouting or anything. It is all in your head.


Linux patents? (none / 0) (#56)
by because it isnt on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 11:38:34 AM PST
Note the conspicuous absence of any patents held by Linux.

The amount of intellectual debasement shown in your post is staggering. Next you will be telling us that your freezer is useless because it can't cook your pizza, men are crap because they can't give birth, and that NASA are a bunch of idiots for landing on the moon because it doesn't exist.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Because it is (none / 0) (#57)
by Icebox on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 12:25:07 PM PST
I'm sorry, were you attempting to weigh in on the current debate topic?

If so, let me bring you up to date:

Microsoft: nearly 2,000 patents.

Linux: 1 patent that is actually owned by IBM.

I am waiting for someone to demonstrate how it can be that Microsoft has developed not one single innovation, yet has received so many patents, then, how Linux is the pinnacle of innovation but holds 0 patents.

(Hint: You will need to disprove the innovative nature of all 2,000 patents. You can use a point by point reubttal format if you wish, I won't make fun of you)


Maybe... (none / 0) (#58)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 01:38:54 PM PST
...Linux doesn't have patents because it isn't a corporation nor an individual. It is an operating system, and pretty hopefully looking one. Can an operating system hold a patent?

Another factor can be the irrelevance of the kind of operating system for the principle of a patented thing. The same thing can be implemented for Linux, for *BSD, for Slowaris or for HP-SUX, or for Windoze if you insist on exchanging stability for true colors.

One more, maybe the most important, factor is that people writing Linux code aren't so anally retentive about the so-called "intellectual property" (like it is possible to "own" an idea - it's like owning a wind, or a sunset, or a mood...) and prefer giving their ideas away instead of firewalling them behind lines of lawyers. Software patents should've never been allowed; Europe had it right.

There was a patent awarded recently, for swinging sideways. This says something about respectability of the patent office. Heh.

On a side note, some time ago I was browsing through patent library, just for fun, and found a program I wrote without any help in a single night infringes on at least half dozen of them; I grew bored then, maybe I'd found much more. When you have patents even on such trivialities like syntax colorizing or displaying of several strings at once in a spreadsheedish array, infringement is just inevitable. What I am expected to do then? Pay and pay and pay, and still tremble with fear that I infringed?


or maybe, just maybe ... (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:01:55 PM PST
Lunix doesnt have any patents because it is a pedestrian imitation of a 30 year old technology? They dont give out patents to rearguard actions, they give posthumus military medals, may UNIX rest in peace.


30 years old technology... (none / 0) (#61)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:13:47 PM PST
...is about as old to be finally mature and proven.

You can continue kowtowing to His Billness. My bets stay on unix.


His name is "William" (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 03:01:55 PM PST
Do you think Richard Stallman would appreciate being called His Dickness? Ha ha ha LOL. I slay me.

You can continue kowtowing to His Billness.

I might just do that when and if I begin to give a damn about UNIX versus Windows, ATT versus Walkie-Talkies, etc. As far as I am concerned, either way, we're still talking about a free country full of consumer gadgets with which I have no interest in communicating intimately.


And...? (none / 0) (#64)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 03:40:56 PM PST
Do you think Richard Stallman would appreciate being called His Dickness?

Do I know? (Do I care? He's at least funny and doesn't promote incompatiBILLity.)

Ha ha ha LOL. I slay me.

Not here, please. Go to the bathroom. Tiles are easier to clean up.

As far as I am concerned, either way, we're still talking about a free country full of consumer gadgets with which I have no interest in communicating intimately.

As long as I can get a lawyer on my neck for tinkering with a consumer gadget, I dare to doubt the country is free anymore.


I see. So you want the terrorists to win? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 04:47:22 PM PST
As long as I can get a lawyer on my neck for tinkering with a consumer gadget, I dare to doubt the country is free anymore.

I'm not sure I understand you. As far as I know, the country remains free whether you void your warranty or not.

I do believe you are having an internal monologue about something unrelated to proprietary vs Free software driving commercial (as in 'never given away for free', 'intended for profit', etc) gadgets. Unlike RMS, I dont think the code running my Epson printer is anything other than capitalist infrastructure to sell more Epson printers. It wouldnt make a shred of difference to my Freedom if that software were Free instead of proprietary. Free Software = Expensive Gadgets = Capital Infrastructure = Programmer Decadence. If you dont believe me, check out the stories on the Fortress Freedom Software, Slashdot. No one but a cretinous self-absorbed geek could mistake that site for anything other than an orgy of consumer culture and pathological capitalism. So much for Freedom and The Revolution.

Maybe you are confusing software with notes written on a napkin by a computer scientist at lunch?


sir, (none / 0) (#66)
by nathan on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:20:13 PM PST
I abjectly implore you to get an account.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Done, I think. (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 06:01:02 PM PST
That looked a lot like the esteemed Mr. Gibbons, only in anti-consumerism drag.


 
Epson and terrorists (none / 0) (#67)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:47:56 PM PST
I'm not sure I understand you. As far as I know, the country remains free whether you void your warranty or not.

DeCSSgate. First party infringed on the other's party rights to go without the first party's one-and-only-endorsed-platform. The second party enforced their rights, the first party striked with tactical ballistic lawyers.

Unlike RMS, I dont think the code running my Epson printer is anything other than capitalist infrastructure to sell more Epson printers. It wouldnt make a shred of difference to my Freedom if that software were Free instead of proprietary.

An example from local history. Sometimes around the Revolution, a lot of el-cheapo 9-pin dot matrix printers of one certain brand got between the people. They were without graphics mode, with support only for the characters in their ROMs. Soon, "pirate" EPROMs with requested Kamenicky language norm appeared (cheap, we bought one too). Technically, it was illegal, and required (simple) reverse engineering and editing the character map, and technically it was infringing on the manufacturer's "rights". However, I doubt the manufacturer would be interested in support for already-sold morally obsolete printers. So people became "infringers" because they had to take what they need on their own.

I understand that Corporations aren't interested in supplying solutions for markets too small to be fiscally interesting. However, they then should allow the affected people to take the matter to their own hands and help themselves, instead of withholding specifications and forcing them to laborious reverse engineering and then threating them with lawyers when results appear.

If there will be terrorists whose aim will be to liberate the firmwares, they will have my full support.


 
Greed, I tell you. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Uncanny Vortex on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 01:42:07 PM PST
The reason Microsoft has those patents is greed, pure and simple. They want to keep their supposedly original ideas to themselves. The open-source community wants everything to be shared, and most of its members are not attempting to profit from their work -- so why would they request patents on it?

Don't try and tell me that among those 2,000 patents, Microsoft hasn't patented some concepts which were originally developed by the open-source community (albeit never patented).

Besides, software patents are crap. Most of the software-related patents which have been issued are absolutely bogus. The Patent Office doesn't have enough software expertise to know which claims are valid or even make sense. How are they supposed to police the industry in this manner? It seems that when in doubt, they just go ahead and issue the patent. This lack of technological expertise causes them to stifle industry innovation, and allows people to obtain patents for ideas which were not originally theirs.

I'll bet you anything that Microsoft has patents for UI elements which should have belonged to Xerox or Apple -- and that's just one example.

-- Uncanny Vortex

P.S.: In my spare time tonight, I plan to go through all 2,000 patents and refute them all. I'll post that point-by-point refutation here by morning. In fact, while I'm at it, I might as well look at all the patents by other major industry players: Macromedia, Sun, Apple, Compaq, Adobe, and Symantec, just to name a few. I should have those refutations available also, by tomorrow.



Greed is not bad (2.00 / 1) (#62)
by Icebox on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:35:28 PM PST
Well damn Microsoft, damn them all to hell. What are those people thinking in Redmond? Putting profit ahead of....well, nothing really, except maybe a misguided sense of contributing something meaningful to society, which seems to be what motivates Open Source developers.

Every day I curse Microsoft for the hundreds of thousands of jobs they have helped to create. I curse them for being successful. I curse them for protecting their investment, and thereby securing a future for not only their employees, but for their stockholders and business partners and contractors and suppliers. The gall of those people.

I'm pleased with the knowledge that the Linux companies don't stoop to this level. They certainly know that there are many issues that should come before profit, procuring enough bandwidth to keep the whole staff knee deep in pirate copies of anime porn being first and foremost among those. At least until the venture capital runs out and 'restructuring' takes precedence.

Are any of you people actually under the impression that businesses exist for any reason other than to make money? Has the public education system completely failed to provide you with any knowledge of economics whatsoever?


 
The fact is (none / 0) (#69)
by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 08:37:15 PM PST
a patent doesn't mean it's an innovation, i think you maybe fooling yourself, most of these look like variations on something else not an innovation, i see no new techologys or original ideas, 90% of these ideas look like they where ripped from many other companys or products, unix and so forth, patents are not a good gauge of how a company works, <G> by the way linux doesn't hold any patents becuse the idea doesn't fit in with free software or linux it's self, i figure there are a number of things they could patent judging by how anal ms does it
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

oops (none / 0) (#70)
by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 08:40:29 PM PST
pardon that <G> there it was to be a

to split my ideas i didn't see it in time
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
This is silly (none / 0) (#75)
by Icebox on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 09:52:42 AM PST
Pardon me if I stop paying attention to your posts. If you are going to honestly try to claim that you somehow know more about innovation than the US Patenet and Trade Office we are voyaging into previously undiscovered areas elitism, coupled with a perplexing tangle of ignorance, specious reasoning, and outright bullshit.

I would like to recuse myself from further participation in this thread. No one has once answered any of my original claims against the validity of the diary's links, nor have they offered even a shred of evidence that Linux has offered any innovation of any type ever in its 30+ year history.

The very fact that you people cannot offer any evidence that Linux is anything other than a child's toy (except of course for the Open Source rah-rah sites), and the fact that your primary debate tactic is to point out what, in your skewed opinion, are Microsoft's failings should stand as evidence to any reasonable person that you are all fist clenching teenagers with no real world experience.


Hmm (none / 0) (#76)
by budlite on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 09:58:39 AM PST
<B>The very fact that you people cannot offer any evidence that Linux is anything other than a child's toy </B><P>Except the extremely large number of web servers running Linux or another Unix OS.<P>Everyone refuting your claims that some sort of "innovation quotient" is based on the number of patents held by a company or pertaining to a particular piece of software is correct. Linux developers don't patent their ideas because that goes against the ideals of the open source and Linux community - shared ideas for the greater good is what goes down, not profiteering.


Apologies for mis-formatted post (none / 0) (#77)
by budlite on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 10:00:10 AM PST
The very fact that you people cannot offer any evidence that Linux is anything other than a child's toy

Except the extremely large number of web servers running Linux or another Unix OS.

Everyone refuting your claims that some sort of "innovation quotient" is based on the number of patents held by a company or pertaining to a particular piece of software is correct. Linux developers don't patent their ideas because that goes against the ideals of the open source and Linux community - shared ideas for the greater good is what goes down, not profiteering.


not that old nugget again (none / 0) (#80)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 01:52:52 PM PST
Except the extremely large number of web servers running Linux or another Unix OS.

So what? TCP is Unix's native networking protocol so one expects a (dwindling) Unix presence on the Internet for purely inertial instead of technical reasons. Meanwhile, the overwhelming number of computers connected to the internet are NOT Lunix or another Unix OS. Furthermore, if you performed an honest accounting of traffic, you would discover that Unix is responsible for much less Internet traffic than Windows; it's the difference between visiting as many Unix-hosted sites as you can in a week and downloading 1 warez app off a p2p network.

Unix is a dead end.


Servers.. (none / 0) (#81)
by DG on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 04:12:24 PM PST
Realize we are not talking desktops, we are talking servers, and nothing beats a unix server, windows servers are too crash prone to take a beating serving thousands of people, make good intranet servers though
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

oh no not servers? (none / 0) (#84)
by detikon on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 04:59:23 PM PST
You think any of these guys know the difference between a server and a desktop? They like to go on and on about all the Windows machines out there. Sure there are more Windows machines connect "to" the internet but "connecting" the Internet.

These same people love to go on about how Windows runs 90% of the worlds computers. Amazingly enough they fail to realize that dwindling 90% (formerly 95-98%) are desktops.

Do you understand that now? 90% of the DESKTOP systems. In the server room companies rely on mostly Unix. Of course many people think Unix is dead because they don't know how to use it.

"I don't know how to use it so it must suck."
"MS doesn't hold my hand and treat me like an idiot with this OS so it sucks."
"It's not made (carbon copied) by Microsoft so it sucks."

The same people say the Mac is dead but dear god those iMacs sell like crazy.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Unix seems dead... (none / 0) (#85)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 05:28:46 PM PST
...because it isn't talked about so much.

Windows machines demand attention. They need to be rebooted, they need to be defragmented, they need to be reinstalled. People talk about it and complain about it.

Meanwhile unixoid machines quietly keep running.

My bets stay on the architecture proved by 30+ years of active use, including mission-critical applications.


IRIX never dies (none / 0) (#86)
by walwyn on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 05:51:08 PM PST
My Silicon Graphics Workstation only needs rebooting when I delete directories containing a few 100 files, and the directory structure gets screwed up. Then systems have to come round and fsck the drive because the backups take too long, about once every 6 months.

My win2000 machine needs rebooting about once every 3 months normally due to losing the network connection.

The SGI is used for running one major job every month and a couple of minor scripts per day. The win2000 machine runs flat out 6/24. Go figure which is the most reliable.



Depends... (none / 0) (#97)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 08:36:52 AM PST
...what version of the system runs on it, what filesystem it uses, how old it is, how long it runs. I have no experiences with Silicon Graphics machines so I can't really argue here. Maybe if that particular flavor of unix doesn't work for you you should ditch it and try another one (maybe *BSD?).

My win2000 machine needs rebooting about once every 3 months normally due to losing the network connection.

Why do you have to reboot because of losing of network connection, anyway? Wouldn't restarting the network services be enough? Or is it way too tightly "integrated"? What software you run (or don't run) on it?

I seen a few of stable Windows machines; enough to convince me it is possible they can exist. However, the majority of them is still problematic; maybe because they run more than a very few of applications with more than a few of functions used.


I don't care (none / 0) (#114)
by walwyn on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 03:46:51 PM PST
Maybe if that particular flavor of unix doesn't work for you you should ditch it and try another one (maybe *BSD?).

Maybe getting the one application I use the SGI for, scripted up for win2000 would be better than introducing yet another OS for systems to maintain.

Why do you have to reboot because of losing of network connection, anyway?

Sometimes an attempt to list a remote filesystem will clear the problem, other times not. In general it is quicker to simply restart the machine then go messing about with arcane systems tools. Similarly when the HPUX server sat behind me goes flakey, 3 or 4 times a year, a reboot sorts the thing out. Why waste time pissing about?

What software you run (or don't run) on it?

Well we are doing high end CADCAM systems development. So compilers, editors, scripting tools, bug tracking software, web browsers, etc, etc. And of course our own software.

However, the majority of them is still problematic; maybe because they run more than a very few of applications with more than a few of functions used.

Perhaps that is why you don't see too many problems on your Lunix system - precious few applications running on it.


 
Here's a euraka moment for you. (none / 0) (#88)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 07:40:02 PM PST
You know very little about computers and operating systems, and obviously nothing about operating Windows NT/2000/XP. No, really, trust me on this.


Oh really? (none / 0) (#99)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 08:58:25 AM PST
Seems your side is running out of arguments to support your side. Otherwise I can't explain the growing share of ad-hominem attacks, usually cowardly led by some Anonymous Cowar... err... Reader.

I don't know much about XP, but more about NT/2000 than I'd like to. I will be happy when we will ditch them all.


Oh yes (none / 0) (#100)
by detikon on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 09:11:28 AM PST
I just love how they moved everything around and slapped it in MMC, and moved this a moved that from NT4 (SP1-I lost count) to W2K (NT5). Oh but it's easier they tell you. Oh look now it's easier with XP. I care since it's just 2000 with a kiddie GUI. There's no server version of XP so why upgrade there?

I wonder what their planning to screw with in Server.NET. Hell I hear it's not likely to be called Server.NEt anymore. Kinda like how MS has been promising us BlackComb since 95.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
You idiot. (none / 0) (#89)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 07:58:51 PM PST
Windows share in the back room is growing, not diminishing. Where Lunix is succeeding, it is succeeding in traditionally Unix centers that have upgraded to commodity Intel hardware because commercial unicies and the RISC platforms they run on are d-e-a-d, dead. Now reread the first sentence in this post. In effect, Lunix is Unix's dying breath.

You people just dont get it, do you? For everyone of the minor successes you loudly trumpet on your cheerleading sites, the rest of the world quietly continues to upgrade to NT.

Lunix is an uninspired imitation of 70's technology. Get over it.

As for the distinction between server and client on the Internet, that distinction is rapidly disappearing. Today's PC/DSL combination (running Lunix in only two out of one thousand instances, I remind you) is more powerful than the traditional Unix combination, when Unix mattered, which it no longer does.

Reality intrudes...


clarification (none / 0) (#92)
by detikon on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 10:06:54 PM PST
Where Lunix is succeeding, it is succeeding in traditionally Unix centers that have upgraded to commodity Intel hardware because commercial unicies and the RISC platforms they run on are d-e-a-d, dead.

That would likely make more sense if Unix (commercial/open source) wasn't confined to RISC platforms. One of the benefits of writing Unix in C...the ability to port it to basically any platform. Hell Sun Microsystems sold low/mid-end servers with Intel processors. Solaris was available for x86 platform. RISC, CISC, whatever.

MS losing ground
License 6.0, though, has proved massively unpopular. Announced in May 2001 and originally due to take full effect on October 1 2001, the program has been delayed until August 1 2002. As that date looms closer, though, a revolt is simmering among customers.

A survey of chief information officers, chief technology offers and chief operating officers at 1,500 at corporations worldwide found 36% are unable to afford the changes. Thirty eight percent said they are seeking alternatives to Microsoft products. Linux, Unix, StarOffice and Novell's eDirectory were most often cited alternatives.





Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

can you read? (none / 0) (#93)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 11:53:55 PM PST
Nowhere in your linked article does it say MS lost any ground whatsoever. A survey -- performed by who it doesnt say -- found corporate officers unenthusiastic about the possibility of increased expenses.

This is the pattern in all your "facts and figures" about Linux vs Windows. You link to Linux fan sites that say NOTHING concrete.


this what you wanted to know? (none / 0) (#96)
by detikon on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 02:10:34 AM PST
Nowhere in your linked article does it say MS lost any ground whatsoever. A survey -- performed by who it doesnt say -- found corporate officers unenthusiastic about the possibility of increased expenses.

According to the survey, conducted by ITIC and Windows NT and Windows 2000 specialist Sunbelt Software,

Shows how much attention you paid. Maybe you should go back and read it a little more carefully. Maybe then you won't sound so much like a dumb shit. One more thing, it's not solely about increased expenses. It's about whether or not companies can afford to adhere to the license which states when they should upgrade. The expenses aren't a "possibility", they are real. Do you think that every corporation out there spend billions for this stuff? Man you're stupid. You apparently don't know shit. Even with large corporations the budget for IT is generally small. Even compared to stupid risky as hell no doubt about it doomed to fail shit.

Gee wonder why they changed the deadline, other than "confusion". Could it be that the license has never been popular? Nobody liked it when it was announced and nobody really likes it now.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

you're an idiot, NAWL (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 01:44:21 PM PST
You claimed Windows is losing share in the back room. This is wishful, shrill Lenixist thinking. That is why you cannot back up your claim with evidence. Despite lagging sales of h/w, NT's penetratation into the server market continues unabated.

Lenix works, we know that. So does MS-DOS. In terms of internal features, NT (and to a lesser extent solaris) is to Lenix as Lenix is to MS-DOS. It doesnt forking matter that Lenix can be connected to the internet as a forking file server because internet servers dont forking do anything particularly difficult. Get it?


 
gotcha (none / 0) (#112)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 03:00:51 PM PST
The Lunix argument in a nutshell: it's not about technology, it's about price.

You're a moron.


 
A concrete example... (none / 0) (#98)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 08:47:52 AM PST
...is the company I work for.

One of our facilities is running a pilot program to test the feasibility of Linux-only office. The results are as far mixed[1] but hopeful. In next 18-24 months we will decide if the rest of the corporation will go One Microsoft Way, or ditch Bill completely. As far, the results are not fully conclusive for any of the possibilities, but with recent developments in Linux area the odds of geting rid of the Billionaire Bastard Bill are getting dramatically better.

[1] The main problem is the incompatiBILLity of file formats. Billy knows what he does to keep the market share.


Why not... (none / 0) (#102)
by detikon on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 09:27:42 AM PST
ditch it all. Windows sucks OSS sucks blah blah blah. Why not head over to to www.bebits.com and download BeOS5 Personal Edition (or find a distributor still selling Professional Edition -- yes they exist). Then head back to BeBits and get EVERYTHING free!

Wanna move Windows out of the office? Can't get over the issues with StarOffice, Open Office, KOffice with those annoying "standards"? Want better compatibility with MS Office? Then I suggest ThinkFree.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Thanks! (none / 0) (#104)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 09:56:15 AM PST
I sent the ThinkFree link to the upper echelons to investigate. Do you have any (positive or negative) personal experiences with it? The crossplatformness of the system is exactly what I want from an office suite; would make the transition easy and without major bumps.

I don't think we will go BeOS, because of the general trends in the world (and resulting application support). But I can't (and don't want to) completely deny that possibility. We will, though, most likely end either Linux-only, or Linux on the desktops and BSD on the servers.

I am looking forward to the day when we will give Bill one big and well-deserved farewell!


not really (none / 0) (#125)
by detikon on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 12:19:31 AM PST
I myself have only heard about it a short time ago. I read an article at OSOpinion.com and clicked the link. From what I have read about it and some of the responses to the article it looks rather appealing.

As for BeOS...you could always look into OpenBeOS or AtheOS.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
your problem is (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by nathan on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 02:19:26 PM PST
That you clearly have little understanding of what an enterprise solution is.

I could download BeOS, all right. Why doesn't KPMG do that instead of paying thousands of dollars in software licensing fees for every computar? Why doesn't the New York Times do that? Their computars cost a lot of money! You could buy many blowjobs and coke lines for that money!

I could buy a bunch of old textbooks and study in a basement instead of going to school. Why don't more people do that? People are stupid! It'll take me forever to buy a good computar because I don't have a real job!

Grandpa NAWL, I've had it with you and your incessant floods of insanity. Grow up and live in the real world, you idiot! The world is not going to conform to match your fantasies! There is more to life than posting the same post to the Adequacy over and over and over!

Man, this makes my head hurt. I hate you so much.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
oh please (none / 0) (#94)
by DG on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 01:09:19 AM PST
novell is used more than nt is, and the people who use nt must really want to lose work, i mean come on ms keeps putting out a new version every year now, thats just going to kill your clients to have to upgrade every year, becuse they are told by pr guys how great the new shit is
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

ad homin this, Linus Jr. (none / 0) (#111)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 02:53:11 PM PST
You Lenixists obviously dont believe in innovation. That's fine, innovation isnt strictly necessary or even a good thing. You like to think of an OS the same way you think of your shirt button, a timeless innovate-once design. Who am I to argue?

I just installed Emacs for NT to run Allegro Lisp as an editor process. It sucks on NT. It looks and acts like shit. It doesnt take advantage of any NT or win32 specific features. You know why NT Emacs sucks? Because Open Sauce "programmers" have Lenix so far up their asses, they cant write anything other than Lenix software regardless of the OS. Apparently, if you dont have the source to the kernel, emacs cant be coded correctly. /rolls eyes.

Silly people.


you're silly (none / 0) (#126)
by detikon on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 12:32:10 AM PST
You Lenixists obviously dont believe in innovation.

Problem with Microsoftites is they actually believe Microsoft innovates.

Because Open Sauce "programmers" have Lenix so far up their asses, they cant write anything other than Lenix software regardless of the OS.

Why is it that you all seem to think that open source is limited to Linux and the GNU GPL?




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

clarifications (none / 0) (#129)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 07:44:22 AM PST
Why is it that you all seem to think that open source is limited to Linux and the GNU GPL?

(1) I'm not a microsoftie, I just happen to know Windows is much, much better than Lunix. I take operating systems for granted and unless I'm talking to you advocacy dorks, I dont talk about operating systems at all. (2) I dont judge s/w according to its license. I'm grateful for gcc and friends as well as the academic work released under open source licenses. However, gnome, kde and 99% of the stuff that comes with a Lunix distribution -- including Lunix, in particular -- is complete crap. Generally, Windows apps are always better than their Lunix analogues. This isnt up for debate. However, the very worst thing about Lunix is its users.


 
I'm sorry, you Lenixists are total morons. (none / 0) (#87)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 07:36:10 PM PST
and nothing beats a unix server,

What are you, stupid? Just because Apache can stuff a file down an open socket doesnt mean you know a fucking thing about either Unix or NT. Here's a big fat clue for you: I can boot NT directly into a command line, start Apache and forget about it. Has it escaped your attention how many high profile, large traffic, complex sites run NT?

There's absolutely nothing special about Unix except its relatively dated, inefficient and slow technology.


Well (none / 0) (#95)
by DG on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 01:17:41 AM PST
i'd like to see you do that, becuse i've never heard of anyone booting directly to console, i doubt you can, it would be pointless to use nt since it's selling point is the gui, as to apachi i don't care about apachi i'm talking uptime and file serving, if you can't keep a civil tongue about you, please go back to /. with your trollish posts
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

thank you (none / 0) (#105)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 01:16:09 PM PST
i'd like to see you do that, becuse i've never heard of anyone booting directly to console,

You've never heard!? There's lots of things you havent "heard". Right, thanks for the admission. As I've been saying all along, you dont know what you're talking about. I realize we might be talking about stuff too complex and heady for your hearing, much less understanding.


Thanks nothing (none / 0) (#117)
by DG on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 04:46:10 PM PST
You show no proof, i'd like to see a link to any site that has info on this becuse right now.. it sounds like so much bullshit, sneering and saying so what it's true becuse i say so, is the most childish thing in the world, you need to stop with all this elitism, hell yoshi seems to know more about computers than you do, and he's one paranoid nut. proof wins a debate more than yelling at the person that you are right, they are wrong and thats all you seem to be doing, learn some debate skils, maybe some civilism and grow up. as for now i'm finished with this becuse it's not going anywhere
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

sorry, I dont debate Lusers (none / 0) (#119)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 05:01:47 PM PST
learn a thing or two about computers and get back to me. LOL.


funny (none / 0) (#127)
by detikon on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 12:34:48 AM PST
Rather than proof you result to childish name calling. You won't debate because you can't win.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

shut up, NAWL (none / 0) (#130)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 07:51:46 AM PST
Proof of what, you moron? None of you Lenix clowns offer proof or are equipped to understand proof were it offered. You think I'm going to teach you computer science on adequacy? Go play with your Lenix.


 
debate (none / 0) (#138)
by DG on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:02:51 PM PST
more like becuse you can't come up with anything, i ask for a simple link to a page, and all you can do is whine at me, without providing anything useful, go away you damn troll, where are the editors i want a troll free site!
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Still, nothing beats a unix server. (none / 0) (#101)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 09:14:34 AM PST
Here's a big fat clue for you: I can boot NT directly into a command line, start Apache and forget about it.

a) How?
b) If you do so, you can as well run any unixoids as the main argument as far was only the lack of droolproof GUI. Or will you find a rank-and-file MCSE capable of keeping it in line?

Has it escaped your attention how many high profile, large traffic, complex sites run NT?

No. But also it hadn't escaped my attention how many high-profile, large traffic, complex sites run on a flavor of unix.

There's absolutely nothing special about Unix except its relatively dated, inefficient and slow technology.

Is there anything special about Windows besides the costs and licensing terms and its relatively new (and buggy and poorly tested), inefficient and slow technology?


keep talking (none / 0) (#106)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 01:27:19 PM PST
a) How?

Explorer.exe is a shell. You can replace it with something else during the boot process. More importantly, if you didnt know this, then you arent qualified to discuss the merits of Unix vis a vis NT.

If you do so, you can as well run any unixoids as the main argument as far was only the lack of droolproof GUI.

You are so wrong, bozo. You seem to think NT is win32 instead of a kernel for handling processes, threads, scheduling, io and its models of (a)synchronicity, multiple cpus with fine grain control, etc. In theory, you can replace win32 entirely.

There's no point to this discussion. You know nothing.


Roger, wilco. (none / 0) (#110)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 02:50:36 PM PST
Explorer.exe is a shell. You can replace it with something else during the boot process.

I know this. I just wasn't aware about that there are commandline options. Do you have a hyperlink?

More importantly, if you didnt know this, then you arent qualified to discuss the merits of Unix vis a vis NT.

What's the merit of tuning NT to meet unix security and performance standards, when you can have the Real Thing itself?

You are so wrong, bozo. You seem to think NT is win32 instead of a kernel for handling processes, threads, scheduling, io and its models of (a)synchronicity, multiple cpus with fine grain control, etc. In theory, you can replace win32 entirely.

What will run on it then? Why it isn't an option in standard installation? Why it isn't even documented in manuals? (Well, maybe I hadn't looked deep enough.) All I got was a multimedial presentation telling me how to click a mouse, and a set of "wizards" for finding faults that told me what I already knew. Besides, there are both multiprocessor and realtime versions of unixes as well, for lower TCO and without incompatible proprietary extensions and mandatory upgrades looming in licencing terms.


why are you still talking? (none / 0) (#115)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 03:56:31 PM PST
I really dont need additional evidence of your ignorance, I have enough.

I just wasn't aware about that there are commandline options.

It's not a "command line option." Do you know how init and /etc works on Unix? NT undergoes a similiar process during boot. Your question is NT 101 and google will answer it for you any number of times. And since you've demonstrated such a strong willingness to learn how much better and more versatile NT is compared to Lunix, I'm going to expose the following highly classified, top secret cabal links: sysinternals.com, windows2000faq.com, microsoft.com.

What's the merit of tuning NT to meet unix security and performance standards, when you can have the Real Thing itself?

The overwhelming majority of security incidents for NT are related to [ie]explorer.exe. There's something you must learn: NT proper has an extraordinarily good security profile and very few "exploits" and such compared to Lunix, or any OS for that matter.

What will run on it then?

Whatever an Open Sores programmer decides to program. What do you mean? Win32 calls NT services for it's functionality. If you want to expose the programmer to a different api, write one or buy one. Win32 operates at roughly an intermediary level between unix's posix semantics and clib. Let me ask you your question: when's the last time you ran Linux without clib? The difference is, you can write server apps in NT without win32, although in practice, the subset of process, file and socket win32 calls is done well enough to MOVE ON AND STOP RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL.


Why not? (none / 0) (#120)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 05:03:30 PM PST
It's not a "command line option." Do you know how init and /etc works on Unix? NT undergoes a similiar process during boot.

With the controlling data carefully hidden in the Registry. *Every* system has a list of commands to execute after the boot.

Your question is NT 101 and google will answer it for you any number of times.

Google is good only and only if you have a good set of specific-enough keywords/keyphrases. For more generic questions it isn't of much help.

And since you've demonstrated such a strong willingness to learn how much better and more versatile NT is compared to Lunix, I'm going to expose the following highly classified, top secret cabal links: sysinternals.com, windows2000faq.com, microsoft.com.

Sysinternals.com - good, I am using their tools in debugging things gone awry.
Windows2000faq.com - hadn't knew this one, thanks. Maybe I will find there some hints to some of my NT5 (errm... 2k) pains.
Microsoft.com - takes long to load, undergoes redesign frequently so bookmarked pages move, and features the MS Answers Hide'n'Seek user interface.

The overwhelming majority of security incidents for NT are related to [ie]explorer.exe.

Yes, application-level security is bad. But hey, tell me when you seen an email worm that would infect pine?

Most installs are the default ones, without much of additional tunings, with the default vulnerabilities. (Who can afford good admins usually runs unixes anyway.)

There's something you must learn: NT proper has an extraordinarily good security profile and very few "exploits" and such compared to Lunix, or any OS for that matter.

Same with OpenBSD, just cheaper.

Whatever an Open Sores programmer decides to program.

So why I shouldn't use unix kernel then? It comes without maintaining an expensive catdog hybrid.

Let me ask you your question: when's the last time you ran Linux without clib?

I don't suppose glibc does count as something different than "original" libc.

Does diet-libc count? Does a set of customized statically-linked apps count?

The difference is, you can write server apps in NT without win32, although in practice, the subset of process, file and socket win32 calls is done well enough to MOVE ON AND STOP RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL.

I admit, the new Microsoft(R) Octagon[TM] Wheels work much better than their older, square versions. The price sucks too.


this discussion is over (none / 0) (#122)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 05:31:35 PM PST
With the controlling data carefully hidden in the Registry.

No. Now stop waving your hands and admit you know too little to intelligently discuss NT. (By the way, the registry is an excellent idea excellently implemented. It is much easier to irreparably corrupt /etc than the registry on NT/2000/XP. Registry tools are much safer, more convenient and versatile than the reams of barely maintained man, info, html and text docs documenting every inconsistent file format under /etc. In 20 fucking years, Lenixists will be praising their own "innovative" xml version of /etc, even though half their apps will continue to litter the system with 1000 different versions of the config wheel and READMEs explaining Why My Version is Better than Yours.

Getting anything new done right on Lunix is an uphill battle. There is NO innovation in Lunix AT ALL.


If you think so? (none / 0) (#123)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 06:21:15 PM PST
No. Now stop waving your hands and admit you know too little to intelligently discuss NT.

I am looking forward when I will no more have to care about NT.

(By the way, the registry is an excellent idea excellently implemented. It is much easier to irreparably corrupt /etc than the registry on NT/2000/XP.

This is a troll argument, isn't it?

If you're root, yes, one rm -rf can screw the /etc pretty easily. But with admin rights you can screw everything regardless on what platform.

Registry tools are much safer, more convenient and versatile than the reams of barely maintained man, info, html and text docs documenting every inconsistent file format under /etc.

So instead of having a set of messy manpages and a file with comments inside, I have a registry without any chance to keep comfortably comments around, and a set of messy and expensive books describing them. Big win.

What is easier than backing up selected parts of the configuration than just tar -xzf etc.tar.gz /etc (or, via scp, even from another machine), and then restore only what I need later by unarchiving only the specific file? Do this on NT. You have 30 seconds.

In 20 fucking years, Lenixists will be praising their own "innovative" xml version of /etc, even though half their apps will continue to litter the system with 1000 different versions of the config wheel and READMEs explaining Why My Version is Better than Yours.

So now we have 1000 versions of various ways to store registry keys in an single-point-vulnerability closed-format registry file. Oh so fucking great.

Besides, each program should have its own separate configuration file. Pushing them all together is begging for a disaster.

Getting anything new done right on Lunix is an uphill battle. There is NO innovation in Lunix AT ALL.

Who asks for innovation? I don't care about an innovative system; all I want is a stable and transparent reimplementation. I'll leave betatesting of the ideas on Microsofties; whatever it is, Billy's Boys stole it anyway.


unbelievable (none / 0) (#124)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 11:17:22 PM PST
So instead of having a set of messy manpages and a file with comments inside, I have a registry without any chance to keep comfortably comments around, and a set of messy and expensive books describing them. Big win.

Pay attention: when you want users to change the behavior of your app, include an options menu. The registry isnt meant for casual abuse by people who dont know better than to snafu their system. If your app has the ability to behave without restriction, it isnt a configuration file you want, it's a scripting interface or language that looks NOTHING like the abortion included with sendmail.

Let me emphasize once again how little you appear to know about software design and implementation.

And no, it wasnt a troll, but your willingness to mark it as such identifies you -- once again -- as a fool who knows nothing about the subject of his loud opinion. You dont know NT. I dont think you know UNIX, either, and UNIX is very simple compared to NT.


 
same as openBSD? (none / 0) (#133)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 08:34:00 AM PST
Same with OpenBSD, just cheaper.

Unfortunately, in the year of our Lord, 2002, openBSD doesnt do a whole lot more, relatively speaking, than MS-DOS. Both are fine if they meet your needs. /rolls eys. Furthermore, you're going to have a hard time rationalizing "cheaper" when I can buy a 4 cpu system for under $2K and have openBSD see exactly one of those CPUs.


 
Is this argument valid? (none / 0) (#83)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 04:51:59 PM PST
What's the One And Only correct OS network suitability criterium?

Is it the total amount of data transfered?

Is it the number of transactions?

Is it the total amount of data transfers served? Or the total amount of the data transfers requested?

Do we count web and P2P traffic only, or do we include all traffic, including mail, streaming media, etc.? Do we count even telephony systems whose trunks are routed through the Net instead of dedicated wires?

By varying these variables you can get the results that fit your needs, regardless on which side you are on. This is a trick widely used by politicians; watch the parties before election derive opposite results from the same data set.


does it matter? (none / 0) (#90)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 08:19:02 PM PST
The presence of Unix on the Internet wanes in the server room and isnt worth counting on the client. My ISP -- one of the biggest cable ISP's in Canada -- runs NT. Most of the sites I visit, and all of the critical internet services I use such as hotmail, also happen to run NT. Understand what all that means. It means the historical accident of TCP on Unix is being unravelled on the Internet because Unix isnt compelling.

Look, I'm not talking out of school, here. I know Unix better than you do. Every single word Stevens, Kernighan, Nemeth, Snyder, Seebass and Hein have published has been etched into my brain through repeated on the job practice. When I tell you that I can buy you with one month's salary and that Unix is a rotting corpse, believe me and start thinking about expanding your computing horizons beyond the mythology of Unix.

You people are no longer amusing, you are just incorrigibly intransigent.


Maybe. (none / 0) (#103)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 09:43:27 AM PST
The presence of Unix on the Internet wanes in the server room and isnt worth counting on the client.

Oh? My experiences show something different.

My ISP -- one of the biggest cable ISP's in Canada -- runs NT.

The IT infrastructure of bigger subject is usually decision more political than technical. The sales representatives are usually polite but aggressive, and there often are some incentive programs(also called "bribery" by less polite people) for the managers who convince the company to run a given commercial product. I don't know any company that has a choice (ie, doesn't run a mission-critical Windows-only service) and whose management has at least a dash of a clue about computers that runs Windows as a server. I currently serve as a consultant for three people who are upgrading their systems to unix.

My ISP runs unix. My employer's ISP (which is at the same time my ISP's upstream) runs unix as well. My former ISP ran unix. My former backup ISP ran unix. Only one local major ISP that I remember from the top of my head runs NT.

Most of the sites I visit, and all of the critical internet services I use such as hotmail, also happen to run NT.

Hotmail ran on BSD until (and some time after) its acquisition by Microsoft. Most of critical services I am using run a flavor of unix.

Understand what all that means. It means the historical accident of TCP on Unix is being unravelled on the Internet because Unix isnt compelling.

Oh, so why next to everything I look around here runs on unix?

Look, I'm not talking out of school, here. I know Unix better than you do. Every single word Stevens, Kernighan, Nemeth, Snyder, Seebass and Hein have published has been etched into my brain through repeated on the job practice.

With mere year of unix admin level I won't argue here. However, I have friends that are between the world's top 1000.

When I tell you that I can buy you with one month's salary and that Unix is a rotting corpse, believe me and start thinking about expanding your computing horizons beyond the mythology of Unix.

You can't buy me. I am not for sale. Not for the price anyone can afford. I seen both. And if I have to bet my future and livinghood, I will place the bets on unix architecture. (Or more accurately, I will NOT place my bets on Windows.)


your experience (none / 0) (#107)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 01:35:42 PM PST
is tainted by your stupidity. Who cares about your miserable experience? I do enjoy the spectacle of you morons arguing with reality. Windows has surpassed UNIX in almost every category and that is why people are are quietly adopting it while you Lenixists keep loudly talking to yourselves.

It's the developers, stupid. Lunix has none compared to Windows, which is why the best parts of Lunix are starting to look like Windows did almost 10 years ago. Internally, Lunix is still a dog.


My experience (none / 0) (#116)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 04:23:31 PM PST
Windows has surpassed UNIX in almost every category and that is why people are are quietly adopting it while you Lenixists keep loudly talking to yourselves.

Sure? So why wherever I look to, both small and middle companies (I don't see up to the big ones and I am not interested in working for any of them), people are leaving Windows servers in droves? Maybe in Europe people are more resistant to corporate brainwashing. I know where I don't want to go today. Where do you want to go tomorrow?

It's the developers, stupid. Lunix has none compared to Windows, which is why the best parts of Lunix are starting to look like Windows did almost 10 years ago.

Isn't it rather that things are claimed to be stable when they really seem to be stable? Of course, this causes large-scale delays until the "stable" version gets to the market. Besides, second version is usually better (see sendmail vs qmail). It also isn't as bad with the developers as you would wish to believe.

Also, there are Windows API emulators, allowing Windows programs run on unixes. Which is a step forward to the fair market where the OS doesn't limit what applications that can run on it. Which also means there will not be "exclusive" agreements between the developers and the OS vendors (especially The One Whose Name Shouldn't Be Spoken).

Internally, Lunix is still a dog.

You mean that when you treat it well, it will become your best friend? You mean that you can rely on it? You mean it can greatly asssist you? Yes, you are right.

On the other hand, if you worry about certain inconsistencies in Linux kernel, *BSD is here for you.


too funny (none / 0) (#118)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 04:56:40 PM PST
you're seeing small and medium sized business abandoning Windows for Lunix? Unfortunately, there are no prescription lenses for your kind of willfully induced blindness. Apart from being wrong in point of fucking fact, you're completely rediculous if you think small and medium sized business are going to subsidize an internal IT infrastructure of l33t punks to support crap on sourceforge running on an unsupported kernel-of-the-day OS developed without a coherent development model, strategy or loyalty to customer demands for backwards compatibility. Goddamn, even the behavior of perl scripts depend on the version of perl installed, never mind clib or the kernel. Meanwhile, I've been running the same version of Photoshop for seven years and 3 different versions of Windows. Support is a nightmare on Lunix, which is the number two reason why professionals dislike developing for it. (Number one is, you guessed it, no market.)

What world do you live in?


I am laughing. (none / 0) (#121)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 05:21:29 PM PST
you're seeing small and medium sized business abandoning Windows for Lunix? Unfortunately, there are no prescription lenses for your kind of willfully induced blindness.

Oh? Had you cleaned your glasses before you looked last time?

Apart from being wrong in point of fucking fact, you're completely rediculous if you think small and medium sized business are going to subsidize an internal IT infrastructure of l33t punks to support crap on sourceforge running on an unsupported kernel-of-the-day OS developed without a coherent development model, strategy or loyalty to customer demands for backwards compatibility.

Works for me. Works for my friends. Why it should miraculously not be true because you wish so? You claim things about here. I live here.

Goddamn, even the behavior of perl scripts depend on the version of perl installed, never mind clib or the kernel.

Depends what. If it's poorly written, yes. However, I run some programs compiled for very old libc and they still work for me. I had a case when it wasn't so easy; but "make clean; make; make install" solved the problem neatly.

Meanwhile, I've been running the same version of Photoshop for seven years and 3 different versions of Windows. Support is a nightmare on Lunix, which is the number two reason why professionals dislike developing for it.

There are companies offering official support. There are newsgroups. There is the Net. There are the sources. For the most juicy problems you can contact the developers themselves. You have all the help you can eat.

(Number one is, you guessed it, no market.)

Ohhhh, the M-word again. Should I be impressed?

What world do you live in?

East Europe, formerly behind the Iron Curtain. You?


OT (none / 0) (#128)
by nathan on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 03:54:45 AM PST
I would have described the Czech Republic as more "central Europe" than "eastern Europe." If the Czechs are eastern, what are the Romanians, Georgians, Ukranians, and all the rest?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Georians. (none / 0) (#132)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 08:30:02 AM PST
Georgians are not European at all.

They are a unique mountain nation that is neither Indo-European nor Turkic. They also speak a fairly unique language that doesn't get classified into common linguistic schemes.


--
Peace and much love...




fine (none / 0) (#134)
by nathan on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 11:14:13 AM PST
But they live in Europe and as such are as legitimately geographically European as Hungarians, Basques, Finns, Estonians, and Bulgarians.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Georgians also produce fine leaders (n/t) (none / 0) (#135)
by walwyn on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 01:26:58 PM PST



 
you're right (none / 0) (#131)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 08:23:40 AM PST
Lunix is about to take over the world. It's been in that state for over 10 years now, during which time Windows took over the world instead. It all makes sense.

Works for me. Works for my friends.

Well, there's the rub. Define "works". Some people have higher standards for functionality than do Lenixists.

Depends what.

No it doesnt, you moron, not as long as Perl's developers decide against maintaining backwards compatibility with legal code. Sheesh.

If it's poorly written, yes.

God you're stupid. How does one know a FUTURE version of Perl will break legal code?

There are companies offering official support. There are still Lunix companies which havent gone bankrupt?! Are you certain about this? I'm afraid I'm going to have to demand some proof of your extraordinary claims.

There are newsgroups. There is the Net

Yeah, tech-support from anonymous morons on the Internet. "I dont understand, Boss, this guy Mad Scientist on alt.last.bastion.of.accuracy.on.the.internet assured me it would work."

Ohhhh, the M-word again. Should I be impressed?

You dont get it, do you? Programmers write to the market. If there is no market, there will be no programmers. If there are no programmers, there is sourceforge and freshmeat. Ah ha ha ha. LOL. You have to admit, that was funny. Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, while there may be lots of student itches being scratched on Lunix, THERE ARE EXCEEDINGLY FEW PROFESSIONAL APPS BEING RELEASED FOR LUNIX. Why do 99.99% of Lunix dweebs still run Windows? Because unlike the perpetual state of yesteryear's beta software languishing on Lunix, there is an unrelenting flood of technology and professional software released for Windows. And it's getting RELATIVELY worse for Lunix, year after year. Lunix is a niche OS. That means you will, at some point, covet software everyone else takes for granted.

GET IT? IT'S A HOBBY, STUDENT OS. IRONICALLY, YOU ARENT LEARNING ANYTHING.


i see now (none / 0) (#140)
by detikon on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:07:36 AM PST
THERE ARE EXCEEDINGLY FEW PROFESSIONAL APPS BEING RELEASED FOR LUNIX.

Kinda like the rendering software IBM is developing for movie studios and the like? What about there ebusiness servers running Linux? Want more?

How about HP? By the way nice supercomputer project.

Let us not forget coorporations such as Sun Microsystems, Compaq, Dell among others.

How about the multi platform MS Office compatible office suite ThinkFree?

Why do 99.99% of Lunix dweebs still run Windows? Because unlike the perpetual state of yesteryear's beta software languishing on Lunix,

You need to think beyond the desktop.

there is an unrelenting flood of technology and professional software released for Windows.

Of course most of it was available from other sources for multiple platforms up to ten years ago. Everything from MS Office to .NET

And it's getting RELATIVELY worse for Lunix, year after year. Lunix is a niche OS.

Really? Wow I guess major corporations should change their web sites. All I see is more announcements for support. Get out of the cave once and awhile. As for your comment about Linux being a niche OS, that's not an accurate statement. Linux is a kernel not an OS. Please use the term "Linux based" OS. Linux powers everything from servers to workstations to desktops, set top devices to PDAs. Hell even some airports are using ID scanners running Linux. They're rather cute with a little pic of TUX on the screen.

GET IT? IT'S A HOBBY, STUDENT OS. IRONICALLY, YOU ARENT LEARNING ANYTHING.

I think you are confusing LUnix with Linux again.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Gentle Readers! (none / 0) (#141)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 05:12:39 AM PST
Dont listen to NAWL's repetition of business buzz. Regrettably, remnants of dot com unists linger in tiny, unimportant offices of middle management, usually by the charitable graces of by their corporate overlords. Unpersuaded by their comrades' spectacular bankruptcies, these no longer useful idiots desperately cling to their discredited marketing mantras and quiet, desperate dreams of turning sow ears into silk purses. It'll pass, not unlike Lunix's 15 spent minutes of fame. Yes, I see pink slips in their future.

I urge all intelligent visitors to The Adequacy to take a moment and verify the existence of a start button at the bottom of their screen. "Wow! How did you know that, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous Reader?" Oh, you flatter me with your rhetorical questions! What else would be there?

Detikon, you continue to confuse your utterly tendentious advocacy with technical merit in Lunix. Isnt it time you learnt a thing or two about technology? I mean, assuming you're smart enough to be geek...


 
Patents do not = innovation (none / 0) (#136)
by NoHatHacker on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 02:56:35 PM PST
Patenting something that you came up with only meanst that nobody can use it without first paying you. Open source is all about allowing others to use what you came up with without having to pay for it. To patent anything for linux is counterproductive.


Patently untrue (none / 0) (#137)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:02:45 PM PST
You aren't actually required by law to charge people for the use of your patented idea. If you do have something that is patentable, and you fail to patent it, there is very little preventing someone else from doing so. In the unlikely event that lenix developers ever find themselves in possession of some innovative software, I hope for their sakes they get legal advice from someone with more familiarity with the patents process than you would get from wailing and moaning about intellectual property on slashdot.



gee (none / 0) (#139)
by detikon on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:45:46 AM PST
If you do have something that is patentable, and you fail to patent it, there is very little preventing someone else from doing so.

Example: Microsoft. You think Microsoft, upon learning about the technology, wouldn't try to patent/trademark it first? Do you remember the whole hoopla about the name Internet Explorer? They argued that it couldn't be copyrighted (it already was) because the term was generic. It was "commonly used" (bullshit) to descibe web surfers. The lost the case but the other side went broke fighting them. MS bought the rights to the trademark. Gee, why would they need to buy it, if they claim they didn't have to?

In the unlikely event that lenix developers ever find themselves in possession of some innovative software,

Let me know when MS truly innovates something. Oh what that excuse? MS doesn't innovate. It just takes the best (bullshit) and slaps on a fisher-price GUI.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
uh duh? (none / 0) (#72)
by detikon on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 12:26:43 AM PST
Note the conspicuous absence of any patents held by Linux.

That would actually make sense if Linux was a company. Check the Linux trademark though. The name/word is registered to Linus Torvalds. Also the query you made "AN/Linux" is not a patent regarding linux in the form of software. It's patent regarding hardware with the Assignee being ZF Linux Devices, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA). You believing that you are going to find patents which belong to Linux (as if it were a company) or OSS in general is mind boggling.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
Uhh (none / 0) (#23)
by Yoshi on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 03:58:34 PM PST
Sorry but MS didn't creat [sic] HTML.

Then why is it called MSHTML? I don't know any other company with the initials of "MS." Try again.

System restoration is much easier.

Really? Easier than going through a Microsoft System Restore wizard? What with your tarbowl archive bullshit?

You've got to be one of the most deluded dumbasses posting on this site. Please, get a clue before you suddenly think you have the ability to rebuke solid proof offered by the people who are obviously more knowledgeable in this area than you (like, well, everyone).


System restoration (none / 0) (#26)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 05:29:29 PM PST
Then why is it called MSHTML? I don't know any other company with the initials of "MS." Try again.

There are many various perverted wannabe-standards, parodies on real codified standards - MS-Kerberos being one of the more famous ones.

Really? Easier than going through a Microsoft System Restore wizard? What with your tarbowl archive bullshit?

As someone who had to restore more machines than he'd like to, I say give me a tarball over a System Restore Wizzard any day. The most meaningful difference is that I can be sure the tarball will do its job, even between different OS versions.

Registry is an unreliable abomination that nicely symbolizes the impact of Microsoft "innovations"; bloat, slow, and introducing system-wide risks and instability. *spit*

I am administering 7 Linux servers and over 35 Windows desktops - which need disproportionate amount of attention, are unstable, and offer no chance of advanced debugging of problems - ie, no gdb, no strace, no source to refer to. The servers typically don't need any care at all, except upgrading and setting up the services (which is easy as I can just scp the configfile from machine to machine, tweak the details - if necessary - and it works! - and in case of frequent changes I can set up replication between the machines, for no additional charges and in few minutes). I managed to recover even from when I screwed a kernel and glibc upgrade. I upgraded kernel on all the machines remotely, without having to visit them; even tried to do so with NT/2k server, without having to babysit it on-site???

Now you can continue with your deluded babbling about superiority of droolproof pictures, as the Blue Death eats your work. Feel free to return back when you will learn more.

You've got to be one of the most deluded dumbasses posting on this site. Please, get a clue before you suddenly think you have the ability to rebuke solid proof offered by the people who are obviously more knowledgeable in this area than you (like, well, everyone).

Truth hurts, yeah? "I shelved out so much money" and "it's a piece of opaque unstable unmaintanable crap" understandably aren't things that people typically want to accept both; I think it is called cognitive dissonance. So go away in peace. And enjoy your next reinstall.


you people don't stop (none / 0) (#27)
by Yoshi on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 06:06:11 PM PST
There are many various perverted wannabe-standards, parodies on real codified standards - MS-Kerberos being one of the more famous ones.

Huh? Kerberos sounds like one of those Kommunist KDE suites. I can guarantee you that Microsoft wouldn't involve itself into the propagation of your anti-Capitalist services.

The most meaningful difference is that I can be sure the tarball will do its job, even between different OS versions.

And why can't you be sure about this with the System Restore Wizard? You assume that just because Microsoft makes it, it isn't reliable? It figures, you Lunix hacks all do.

I am administering 7 Linux servers and over 35 Windows desktops - [...] no gdb, no strace, no source blah blah blah more nerdspeak and geekiness oh god boring blah blah

Please, get a life. No one needs to hear of your little nerd tales about your fairy escapades in homoland. Just get a life, and for once, try to at least sound like you know what you're talking about.


Never. (none / 0) (#28)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 07:07:55 PM PST
Huh? Kerberos sounds like one of those Kommunist KDE suites. I can guarantee you that Microsoft wouldn't involve itself into the propagation of your anti-Capitalist services.

Kommunism or Krapitalism, it's about as good choice as between a rock and a hard place. Give me the source code and adhere to the open standards and I give an accelerated crap about the rest.

Besides anything that could damage MS, including a tactical nuke, is acceptable.

And why can't you be sure about this with the System Restore Wizard? You assume that just because Microsoft makes it, it isn't reliable?

Well... I have eyes, and I have memory. With each new version I hear the same promises that turn to hype or outright lies. Exactly like politicians in pre-election times. Am I supposed to believe them anymore?

I seen too many filesystems (for the purpose of this discussion we will suppose FAT16/FAT32 deserve to be called filesystems, hope NTFS is better) entirely destroyed with Scandisk to believe that Emperor Bill and his bunch of cronies could make any dependable system maintenance tool.

It figures, you Lunix hacks all do.

At least I can find precisely what process crashes, then run it under a debugger, find where it crashes, look into the source, and correct the offending function (when will the people ever learn to use snprintf instead of sprintf???). Besides, if Billy is so good, tell me how can I get rid of that memory leak in MSIE? At least twice per day I run out of resources, then I have to close all its instances, eventually to kill off a hanging iexplore process, and get most of the resources back for next couple hours. Tell me what options I have to deal with it?

I am now heavily playing with multimedia under both Linux and Windows (the aim is to get a platform-independent client side and unixoid server). I had not a single system crash of Linux, and more than dozen of Windows, for only last week. (I had Linux crashes before, under specific circumstances, but after patching the cause - smbfs corrupting dcache tables - I got rid of them completely).

Please, get a life. No one needs to hear of your little nerd tales about your fairy escapades in homoland. Just get a life, and for once, try to at least sound like you know what you're talking about.

What do you prefer - calling for help and getting it right in 5 minutes, maybe even remotely, maybe together with a smirk that you don't know an arcane command in an arcane text file (oh gods, how shameful!), or calling for help only to be told that it is a registry rot, that there is no easy cure, and that you have to reinstall?

I know bloody well what I am talking about. If you think it is boring, just wait until your beloved OS eats a month of your work and you will be unable to access a mission-critical email. I wonder how interested you will be then.

Hee! :)


 
Maybe (none / 0) (#41)
by DG on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:06:58 AM PST
could it be becuse system restore doesn't work right breaks what you have and doesn't play nice if you try to move it? I personally like windows as a desktop but as a server.. please if you want to lose thousands of dollars becuse your 2k server bit the dust becuse of some fluke bug fine by me, i personally think linux/unix make good servers but desktops are microsofts strong point, though apple still beats them at it
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Apple (none / 0) (#43)
by detikon on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:24:18 AM PST
In the past unfortunately Apple really didn't do well in the server room. Some could blame the technology but I think it was mostly poor management. Post Jobs CEOs were really poor at keeping the company strong.

However, as the Mac moves more towards standard peripherals (ability to use many off the shelf parts) plus the power of Unix and a friendly GUI it may start to carve a bigger niche for the company.

There is a lot of speculation about the companies future. Will it port MacOS to an x86 platform (Mac on IBM based PCs)? Will it switch processors (PPC -> x86) for use in Macs? Will it look to IBM as the top supplier of PPC microprocessors?

Hell if Apple would allow for easier processor upgrades it would be more than enough for most people.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

History please (none / 0) (#44)
by walwyn on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 02:46:11 AM PST
Since when has Apple been listed amongst the saints?

The last I heard (1992 FSF newsletter) RMS was saying that Apple were a bunch of arseholes, that anyone who ported FSF software to the Apple OS ought to be horsewhipped, and that he (RSM) would be buggered if any such port found its way into a FSF distro.

Have things changed and if so who buggered RSM?


Yes things have changed (none / 0) (#45)
by detikon on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 04:57:31 AM PST
With the return of Steve Jobs, the return of Apple to its former glory and the company's efforts to embrace and utilize OSS.

If you want the full story on Apple I suggest you take a look at www.apple-history.com

For those who can't seem to tell the difference the link is written in plain text. That means you must copy/paste the link into the location bar. Hopefully this will help any of the readers who suffer from paranoid delusions regarding links.

Although not "officially" endorsed by Apple the site is regarded as the premier source of information regarding the history of Apple Computer, Inc.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

What? (none / 0) (#48)
by walwyn on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 05:54:56 AM PST
the return of Apple to its former glory and the company's efforts to embrace and utilize OSS.

How does sucking on the teat of the whore of Babylon make you sanctified?

And when exactly was this time of former glory?


which would you rather... (none / 0) (#51)
by detikon on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 07:29:27 AM PST
...be doing as a company, spending close to a billion or so on legal battles or take an MS check, get some software (IE and Office), and getting shareholders that have absolutely no say in what you do as a company?

The 5 year deal is up this August. Apple is already to move past MS. IE no longer appears in MacOS screenshots. Apple is also looking at OpenOffice and ThinkFree for Office Suites. MS has no plans to cut off Apple anytime soon. They claim they will continue to develop MS Office for the Mac.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Oh goody (none / 0) (#52)
by walwyn on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 07:56:53 AM PST
spending close to a billion or so on legal battles

Due in part to taking legal action against other software companies for look&feel infringements on something they copied from Xerox.

take an MS check, get some software (IE and Office)

This is a good thing? I guess if Bill handed over 150 million to Alan Cocks then MS would become the Angel Gabriel too.

Truth is you Open Sauce Lunatics can only manage one devil at a time.


prepare for a long read (none / 0) (#71)
by detikon on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 12:14:06 AM PST
Due in part to taking legal action against other software companies for look&feel infringements on something they copied from Xerox.

Xerox really didn't play a part in what the guys were doing at the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). Xerox was interested so they sent the researchers out to market it to other investors. One commonly known instance of this was at IBM. Rather than speak to any tech guys they spoke to marketing suits. As soon as they heard of this thing called a mouse they asked them to leave.

You also seem to forget that Apple marketed a computer with a GUI well before Jobs wents to PARC. It was marketed for business use but it extremely high price tag made it unattractive. It was called the Lisa. You also forget that many elements they used were in the public domain. They were created by Doug Engelbart. He's known for such things as the creation of the mouse and first real GUI. He was also the man who pioneered the idea to direct output to a computer screen. Before then everything came in the form of a print out.

You want to know the story? Ok I'll tell ya.

Apple and Xerox

Apple did not "rip-off" the Macs UI from Xerox. Apple had hired some people from Xerox (like Jef Raskin, Bruce Horn) who believed in concepts of a Graphical User Interface. These concepts are pretty broad -- like making a computer easier to use by using graphics (icons), using menus, windows and making a consistent interface to do things. The work on these concepts predates Xerox PARC -- in fact it was many of these peoples individual work on those concepts that got them hired at PARC. So Xerox (PARC) brought them together to refine them.

Apple's work on GUI's predates Steve Jobs visit to Palo Alto Research Center. Apple had already had the same broad goals of offering an easier to use computer, and possibly using some of the same concept (like menus, icons, and graphics).
Remember the following: Icons were not new, we had been using them for years for international street signs and so on -- they were only new on computers. Menus were not new, text based menus were being used and had been for a while. Graphics weren't new, though how much they were relied upon was new. The concepts of User Interface (Human Factors) was not new, it was just a little newer in applying it to computers.
Jef Raskin had worked at Xerox, and he was tooting the "easier to use" trumpet, with his vision of what that meant. He brought some of those ideas from Xerox, but he had brought some of those ideas TO Xerox as well. Later, he convinced Jobs to visit Xerox PARC, and Jobs became an immediate convert (for ease of use).
What Jobs saw at Xerox was a prototype Smalltalk development system. He did not see either a working ALTO or Star (which was developed much later).
Apple paid

Jobs was so hot on the concepts of UI, and the living Demos he says, that he, later, negotiated a deal with Xerox. He gave Xerox a large sum of stock in Apple (worth Millions) if he could come back, and bring some programmers -- to inspire them more on the concepts of GUI. This was like a one-day tour. This was agreed to by Xerox, and so by no stretch of the imagination could this be called "ripping-off".

PARC was a research center -- meant to inspire development. But they did not really develop products (in the commercial sense), they developed ideas. Saying that Apple learning some of the base concepts and then applying them was "ripping-off" is like saying that Air-Bags are ripping off Newton -- because Air Bags work because they adhere to some of the laws of physics first expressed by Sir Isaac. A silly silly argument. Knowledge builds on knowledge. Xerox didn't see Apple as competition, that is why they let them in -- but they charged Apple, since Xerox believed that their research had value.

Apple was creating a product, and so they hired some of the same researchers from Xerox, to be brought to Apple to work on the Mac and Lisa projects. Those researches state quite clearly that the goals and implementation were quite different between Xerox and Apple. The following is an exchange between two of those researchers, and should give you an idea of how much the Mac contributed to the concepts of UI -
  • Letter from Bruce Horn on origins of Macs UI
  • Response from Jef Raskin (another Mac founder)
  • Response from Bruce to Raskins Letter


  • The letters do seem to agree that the Macs UI was created at Apple, by Apple and for Apple. And that little if any Xerox work was taken, and the Mac was in a completely different universe. Some broad concepts were in common, but that is about it. Apple furthered those concepts, developed their own, and had totally different implementations.

    The differences in UI between the Xerox UI and Apples' Mac were startlingly different. Years ago I saw a demo of a Alto. From my memory (which may not be flawless), it had a 3 button mouse (which you operated with your right hand), and a chording keyboard (for the left hand). There were overlapping windows, but there was no direct manipulation of those windows. To move the window you selected an option, from the one Menu that you had for each window, and you entered the new size or location of the window into a dialog (using numerical coordinates).There were icons, but icons were not associated with files -- they were more actions (buttons). They were using icons as verbs (do this, or do that) -- Apple made them into nouns, objects (that each represented data) that you manipulated. There wasn't that much direct manipulation, and most of the usage of the multiple windows was so that you could have multiple character terminals (like DOS) open at the same time. Contrast this with a Mac and you see that Apple went way way beyond what they saw.
    Xerox extended their developments over time as well, but this is not ripping off. After Apple was far along into the Lisa and Mac project, Xerox had the Star. The Star used many more Mac-like concepts. But many were parallel developed, and some was cross over -- but both machines were developed at the same time but for different goals. I also beleive the Mac is easier to use and has the better interface.
    Contrasts

    Jobs kept beating on the Mac people that "Real Artists Ship!" - and that they were making a product. That is not anything like the research atmosphere at Xerox.

    The Mac was 128k based personal computer, based on a Motorola 68000 processor - the MacOS was designed around Pascal with lots of assembly language for size/speed.

    The Xerox machines were anything but personal computers -- they did not use microprocessors (closer to mini-computers), they had no real resource constraints as the Mac did, they ran slower (in real use), were far less elegant, were very immature (yet had some brilliant concepts) and were not really products -- they were research tools. The Xerox Machines were built around SmallTalk (a very resource wasteful language, for the time, but dynamic and powerful).

    The two machines use completely different code and architectures -- which requires completely different software designs. The Mac and the Alto are about as related as a Motorcycle and a Semi-truck -- sure they both have wheels, both are transportation, and both run on roads -- after that it gets pretty divergent.
    Note: There is not a single line of code that Apple got from Xerox, nor could have since the languages and designs of the system were so radically different.
    Apple and Microsoft

    Now what happened with Microsoft? Well it starts out that Microsoft was one of the first Application Developers for the Mac. Apple (Jobs) knew that the Mac needed Software to be commercially viable, and Jobs learned that Microsoft was trying to break in to the Application market (1).
    (1) Few remember that MS made languages. Then later sold operating systems (MSDOS) which they didn't own (they licensed 86-DOS (called QDOS by its creator) from Seattle Computer Company, sold it to IBM as their own work, and a few years later bought the rights to 86-DOS). And it wasn't until the Mac that they started making Applications. The Mac was Microsoft's chance to break into the lucrative Application markets. (Microsoft had made a few feeble attempts before the Mac, but it was the Mac that made them successful in the application area. They knew that a new computer meant new opportunities.
    Jobs showed Microsoft the early Mac prototypes. Gates liked the ideas and agreed to write Mac applications.

    Gates later threatened to pull their apps at the last minute before release unless Jobs agreed to -
    A) Apple had to license some of the MacUI for MS-Applications on the PC. This Application suite later grew into Windows 1.0 and Office. Remember, Windows started off as an Application Suite, not an OS-Shell (2).
    (2) Because Apple had licensed some concepts to Microsoft (under coercion), it weakened their case later against MS when MS started more blatantly ripping off the Mac. Contrary to popular myth that Apple lost their lawsuit against MS because it wasn't a rip-off, the real reason was that they had been to vague in their licensing of some technologies, and the benefit of the doubt was given to MS.
    B) Apple had to drop their MacBasic project which was completed and better than MS Basic. MacBasic had many concepts that MS ripped off to create VisualBasic. What few ideas for VB that MS didn't rip off from MacBasic they got from HyperCard -- which Bill Atkinson wrote because the Mac didn't have a good simple programming environment, because MS had dropped their basic for the Mac and had forced MacBasic to canceled as well.
    Later MS decided that the GUI was just too cool not to use. So they started on an Application Suite that would use the Macs concepts of Windows, a Mouse, and direct manipulation to achieve its ends. This became Windows 1.0, and evolved into the Windows we know and hate today. The lead programmer for the Windows project was the same guy who had been a lead programmer for writing the Mac Application projects.

    This sequence of events (Microsoft "borrowing" the Mac interface) is not the same as taking rough concepts and adding to them to create your own system -- this is much more intimate than that. Microsoft took their best Mac Programmer, and had him making almost every design decision for early windows. He was told, by Bill Gates, to make a PC look and work, "JUST like a Mac" -- this is a direct quote from Gates! Contrast that sequence of events, to Apple and Xerox sequence of events, and you get an idea for the difference in philosophy and implementation. Microsoft stole, Apple expanded.

    This similarity was (of Windows to MacOS) is not just in design, there are whole toolboxes/API that are almost identical (in interface). Microsoft stole data structures and many routines, and the names and concepts for many things are the same as well. If it wasn't for the fact that they had to hack their stuff on top of DOS, they likely would have just stolen all the same code (and they did get sued for that later as well). If you look at many of the older Windows routines you see names and structures that are identical to the Mac. But MS is smart enough to avoid (or win) lawsuits -- they changed one name out of 10, or re-ordered a few things, all so they could say it wasn't identical. MS also had to make some design changes to get it to run on a PC. But as far as real design work for Windows, there was none -- the Mac was a living design document.

    At first, MS only ripped off the design and implementation, but stayed away from Apple's look and feel. They knew that Apple would only tollerate so much theft. Later MS crossed this line as well, and Apple sued. It was when they started to steal the desktop metaphor (folders, trashcan, etc.) that Apple had enough. No matter what the legal decisions are, ethically Microsoft ripped off the Mac.
    Later (post 1995) Microsoft has started to put some money into R&D, and they may try to innovate. Up to this point, they did not innovate -- they may rework others ideas, or add features to, but that's not "true" innovation.
    Conclusions

    Apple did not rip-off the Alto (Xerox-Parc) -- how could they? Apple was a product oriented company that produced a computer on their own. That computer had a few similarities in concept (user interface) with stuff Xerox was doing, but almost NOTHING in common design or implementation. Apple's metaphors went way way beyond what Xerox was doing (though there are other areas where Xerox was beyond Apple). They were trying to achieve different goals -- and from different points of view. Apple was creating the ultimate personal computer. Xerox was doing research tools, and later tried to make a big client-server type document distribution systems. These are about as similar as a motorcyle and a commuter Bus.

    Microsoft on the other hand did rip-off Apple. The concept of making a computer easy to use is way to broad to protect, and Apple didn't complain about that. Windows, icons and menus are not ripping Apple off either -- these are broad concepts. Microsoft got sued because they stole design, implementation and finally metaphors (look and feel). They stole the way you manipulate things on the computer -- as well as almost everything underneath. I sometimes swear that if Microsoft had an original thought the company would immediately implode in surprise. Almost Everything good in Windows can be traced directly to the Mac (which the Mac had years before) -- and almost everything bad in Windows can be traced directly to where MS tried to do things different than the Mac and proved they don't know what they hell they are doing.




    Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

    nice report.. (none / 0) (#73)
    by DG on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 01:26:06 AM PST
    problem is lots of people don't care.. well on this site, the next day you will see lots of posts whining how this is geek stuff, irrelevent, useless or boring, as if how exciding something is matters in a debate
    2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

     
    Prepare for a short read! (none / 0) (#74)
    by walwyn on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 02:52:07 AM PST
    You also seem to forget that Apple marketed a computer with a GUI well before Jobs wents to PARC.

    You don't read your own links, which was also linked to as Xerox above. The Lisa project was started after Jobs had visited PARC in 1979.

    You want to know the story? Ok I'll tell ya.

    I know the story well enough to say that your revisionism is warped. I also know that Xerox sued Apple for misappropriation of the technology in the late 1980's.


    actually both are right (none / 0) (#79)
    by detikon on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 01:37:49 PM PST
    Steve Jobs actually went to PARC twice. The researchers at PARC were working on systems orginally designed by Doug Engelbart (remember his innovations were in the public domain). A couple of engineers went back with him to Apple and set to work on the Lisa. When it flopped Jobs went back to Xerox to work on the Smaltalk.

    So many times when it's said that he "went" to Xerox, they may or may not be referring to the first meeting. Apple did go to Xerox to go co-develop their systems. As I mentioned before Xerox originally wasn't interested in marketing a computer (at first).

    As for Xerox suing Xerox, can you back this up? Please find proof of the case involving misappropriation of the technology.




    Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

    LA Times (none / 0) (#82)
    by walwyn on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 04:45:51 PM PST
    Check this out.


    good work but... (none / 0) (#91)
    by detikon on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 10:03:04 PM PST
    ...the lawsuit was dismissed. I suggest that when you do research on a past lawsuit you find out the result too.




    Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

    Ah ha (none / 0) (#113)
    by walwyn on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 03:11:09 PM PST
    It was dismissed on the same grounds as the Apple suite against Microsoft was dismissed. As Gates said to Jobs "Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox's house before I did and took the TV doesn't mean I can't go in later and take the stereo"

    The fact remains that throughout the 80's Apple threw its financial weight around, threatening smaller companies and stiffling inovation.

    Some may think that RMS and the FSF's years of punishment of MacOS users for Apple's behaviour was a bit unfair, but feeling ran high in those days and Microsoft was thought of as the hero. Now apparently, the history books have been rewritten.


     
    REGISTRY....AAAAHHHHHHHHHH! (none / 0) (#33)
    by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 09:12:39 PM PST
    Registry is an unreliable abomination that nicely symbolizes the impact of Microsoft "innovations"; bloat, slow, and introducing system-wide risks and instability. *spit*

    I've found the best solution to your registry woes. GET RID OF WINDOWS! If that's not a option than I suggest picking up EasyCleaner. If you're like me then you have likely had peobelms after downloading RegClean from Microsoft. It crashes and burns everytime.

    However, EasyCleaner is the best tool I have found. I used to use Noroton Clean sweep but it does a rather poor job. When checking for duplicate files it doesn't offer many optpions. So if you have to programs that both use two different images called 1.bmp it will flag them both. EasyCleaner checks CRC.

    Anther good utility is Clean System Directory. You should find it here. Trust me they work. Run any Microsoft utility then these and you'll be amazed. For example I ran Disk CleanUP (MS). It's supposed to remove Temporary Files. Imagine my shock after running EasyCleaner (opting to skip Hidded, Read-Only, and System Files, in Options for Unnecessary Files). After Cleaning the registry and removing everything Disk CleanUp missed I gained about 30MB of space on my test machine.

    One last program is Diskeeper (www.execsoft.com). They even include a link to the MS support pages which state that for best results you should use a third party defragmenter.

    Wow, I had to download or buy all that third party software to do stuff Windows is supposed to. But if you're going to keep Windows they're well worth it.




    Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

     
    proof? (none / 0) (#32)
    by detikon on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 08:30:35 PM PST
    Then why is it called MSHTML? I don't know any other company with the initials of "MS." Try again.

    Please show where it's listed as MSHTML. It's rather funny because the independent standards organisation the World Wide Web Constorium (W3C) as well as every friggin text lists it as HTML. You still haven;t explain your stupidity of mistaking it for a protocol.

    Maybe you were thinking of MSTCP/MSIP. Many years ago (around the release of Windows 3.1) Microsoft to make proprietary extensions to TCP/IP in a move it thought would standardize computing and the internet by eventually forcing people to use Windows to use the internet. Amazingly the W3C and every corporation told Microsoft to fuck off.




    Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

     
    I have to know what a DetiKon is. (none / 0) (#13)
    by JoePain on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 10:27:29 AM PST
    Is a DetiKon what a Pokemon turns into when it becomes a enslaved by a Communist?


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.