On Jan 25, 1:42 am, Frank <f...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rex buddy...you need to take that penguin (I won't tell PITA) and go
> kiss RS's hairy arse...you can let the penguin watch if you want...other
> than that...
I have met Richard Stallman, a couple of times. He led a workshop on
publishing software back in the 1980s at RIT. I also met him at a
couple of Linux shows before he decided to boycott the shows because
the Linux distributors didn't call it GNU/Linux.
Last time, he was wearing his "halo", a hat with a brim made from an
old "washtub" disk drive platter, probably from an old VAX pack.
In the google usenet archives, are a few fragments of debates I had
with Richard Stallman over his attempt to use Bison to force
EVERYTHING created using Bison into GNU/GPL. I've always been a bit
more pragmatic than Richard.
> if you so hate MS try some meds or some deep psychological therapy.
I don't hate Microsoft, some of their products are even relatively
good. On the other hand, I don't think it's worth 10 to 300 times
more than products offered by their competitors.
Yes, I do hate it when I have a report due the following morning and
I'm putting the final changes into the document, and suddenly the
operating system or the application suddenly goes berzerk. It doesn't
happen every time, but it happens often enough that I have been
willing to explore alternatives.
Back in the 1990s, it was almost impossible to imagine that it was
possible to run a computer for weeks or months without a crash. Most
users only ran one application at a time, much like they did with MS-
DOS. To them the main difference between Windows and MS-DOS was that
you didn't have to completely shut down one application before you
switched to another. It was only when the Mars Rover was rebooted
after a month, and ran for over a year without a malfunction, that
people began to wonder why a rover on Mars could work so long and the
PC on their desktop couldn't last 3 days.
I had used Unix in the 1980s, SunOS (predecessor to Solaris) in
1990-1992, and Linux in 1993, so I was quite accustomed to having a
computer that could run for weeks, even months, without a reboot.
Sure, back in 1984, the Vax running BSD 4.0 would go belly up when
somebody tried to mount a Vax tape cartridge for VMS into the drive.
We eventually solved by bolting a guard over drive, and posting an
armed guard to keep the DEC rep from attempting to install support
patches without talking to the operations manager. After all, when
that Vax went down, there were 150 people who couldn't do their jobs.
They could quietly sit at their desks and read something, or they
could go and run errands, but if that computer was down for 4 hours,
that was 600 staff/hours, almost 15 staff weeks, lost because the Rep
didn't wait for the IT manager, schedule an appointment for the
upgrade, and/or assumed that the Vax was running VMS.
A few months ago, a UNIX system crashed for about 1 hour, and over 500
planes were delayed, grounded, or cancelled as a result. That
impacted about 50,000 people for an average of 4 hours. Can you
imagine of those servers had been replaced with a Windows PC?
So if Unix and Linux are so technically superior, why hasn't desktop
UNIX or Linux such as UnixWare, SCO Unix, Solaris, or Linux blown
Microsoft out of the water?
I have pointed out several of Microsoft's tactics for preventing
competition from entering the desktop market once they have
established their monopoly. Several of these tactics have been
confirmed in court case exhibits, and several federal court judges
have ruled that these practices were illegal.
I have also pointed out that Microsoft has usually met such rulings
with settlements, most of which seem to have been drafted in
anticipation of an unfavorable ruling, which indicates that they had a
pretty good idea that they knew that the practices were illegal.
I've also pointed out that Microsoft has made such criminal activities
profitable. They are willing to pay $1 billion for legal services and
staff, and $ 2 billion in settlements per YEAR, since the payoff of
such activities is nearly $60 billion in revenue. Mier Lansky, the
Mafia boss who created and ran casinos all over the world did about
the same. He figured out that it was easier and cheaper to pay
everybody off generously than it was to engage in violence. In fact,
violence against public officials and other Mafia leaders was strictly
forbidden and aggressively punished.
Perhaps Bill Gates studied Mier Lansky's tactics and decided that it
was a pretty good business model. Though it seems to be more like
Steve Ballmer's style. When Bill, Paul, and Steve were at Harvard,
Steve was the one who arranged the vice.
> Other than that you're pretty much full of hatred and sh*t!
Quite the opposite. I understand why Microsoft is doing what it's
doing. I even understand why OEMs let Microsoft get away with it. I
even understand why CIOs tend to go along with Microsoft's activities
and tactics.
I point out these tactics, not because I'm whining, but because it's
important that Microsoft's competitors, especially those who want to
make a profit on Linux, know about these tactics, and find strategies
that take these tactics into account.
Several Linux distributors and OEMs have found ways to cope with these
tactics. Slackware offered dual-boot, and the ability to install
Linux on a FAT partition shared with Windows 3.1. Red Hat adopted
ways to help Linux automatically detect devices and activate the
needed drivers dynamically. Red Hat also simplified the management of
software, checking dependencies, installing them, and installing them
automatically if necessary. Knoppix introduced the bootable CD.
Ubuntu introduced the bootable DVD. Each of these made it possible
for curious users to take Linux for a "test drive" without having to
clobber whatever version of Windows was sitting on their PC.
The Linux distributors have also worked much more closely with OEMs,
not requiring them to install Linux to the exclusion of Windows, but
instead working with the OEMs to make sure that Linux could be quickly
and easily installed in just a few minutes, especially on the "higher
end" machines. Ironically, these OEMs have found that Linux-ready
machines are more profitable than Linux-hostile machines.
Microsoft has controlled the OEM distribution channel, but Linux is
now able to do an "end run" via high speed internet, DVDs pasted to
magazines, and DVDs in books.
In addition, Linux has gained the support of those involved in desktop
virtualization. Companies like VMWare, and projects like Xen, have
made sure that Linux can be used as both a client and a host system,
unlike Microsoft's attempts at Virtualization which ONLY permit
Windows to function as the primary or "host" operating system. The
result has been that improvements in the Linux kernel to support
virtualization have even improved the performance and security of
Windows running as a Linux client.
> Now get lost.
Perhaps you would feel more comfortable at comp.os.windows.advocacy, I
rarely post there (usually an accidental cross-post), and many people
will agree with you more generously.
> Frank
Yummy troll, pretty tasty with ketchup.
Rex Ballard
http://www.open4success.org
|
|
