Re: Linux? You're kidding right????????

From: DFS (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 06/08/04 

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:43:13 -0400

Rex,

You make some good arguments here and there, though much of what you write
is just flat out lies or is due to lack of knowledge. More comments inline,
so keep reading if you want.

"Rex Ballard" <r.e.ballard@usa.net> wrote in message
news:29d7c061.0406071813.5a4434a2@posting.google.com...
> tippy_stenstrude@yahoo.com (Tippy Stenstrude) wrote in message
news:<a2795c7d.0405151509.276ecadd@posting.google.com>...
> > Why on earth would anyone consider using Linux?
> >
> > Linux is so bad it is virtually unusable.
> >
> > Surely there is a reason why:
> >
> > 1. Linux has been around for years
>
> Actually some parts of "Linux" have been around for 20 years. Linux
> includes many applications and libraries developed for the BSD UNIX
> operating system. UNIX was widely used for numerous commercial and
> research projects, until Linux began to capture some of this market
> starting in the mid 1990s.
>
> At the same time, Linux has been evolving constantly. For those
> willing to assume some risks, version of Linux that are literally
> hours old are available. For most people however, versions of Linux
> which have been tested and validated for compatibility between
> systems, drivers, and applications, seem to be the most practical
> choice. Red Hat even offers a nice pair of options. They offer
> Fedora which in relatively stable, secure, and reliable, but more
> "leading edge", and then they offer "Enterprise" products which have
> been hardened, tested, and stabilized for the extended life-cycles
> typically encountered in corporate servers and workstations.
>
> > 2. Linux is free
>
> Linux is free, but you have the option of paying for support. We have
> had numerous WinTrolls who have provided glowing examples of what
> happens when you don't pay a little extra for such support as a tested
> version configured to detect the most commonly used hardware,
> help-line support for installation and configuration, and e-mail
> support for notification of bug fixes and security upgrades. Many
> people even pay extra for services such as automatic updates such as
> those offered by Mandrake, Red Hat, and SuSE.

But when MS offers paid services, you dismiss them as "monopolistic,
abusive, illegal, blah blah..." In your mind, there is nothing MS does
right, and nothing Linux does wrong. It's pathetic to listen to you cola
guys bleat on.

> Often "Free" can be very expensive. Yes, you could download a copy of
> debian from the web and install it on a "boat anchor" PC, but you're
> more likely to have incompatibilites with newer hardware, applications
> you purchase or download from other sites might not work, and
> commercial applications might not work at all.

Well there you go. Thanks for admitting it. It's about damn time.

> Linux has lots of software included in the distribution CDs or DVDs.
> Most of this software is royalty free, or available for very
> reasonable registration/support fees.

Why is it even distributed on Linux CDs if it's not GPL? Maybe this "open
source movement" isn't as idealistic as you'd like?

> In some cases, registration
> results in additional upgrades that add very powerful features not
> included in the "free" version, but even the free version is quite
> functional. Open Office will work quite nicely as an Office Suite,
> but at the same time, StarOffice has a rich set of import/export
> capabilities that are far superior and often considered worth the cost
> - especially when importing/exporting to/from recent versions of
> Microsoft Office documents.

> > 3. Linux still has less than 1 percent of the desktop market.
>
> 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, even 35% depending on what you count and how you
> count it. Many people who have only one PC have 2-3 Linux boxes and
> don't even know it. Their router, cable modem, and WiFi boxes are
> running Linux.

> Their Windows Applications are actually Linux
> applications running under cygwin,

???

> most of their favorite web sites are running Linux or UNIX.

Probably 75%.

> If someone pulled the plug on Linux/UNIX
> tomorrow, we would be back in the stone age. Linux and UNIX are the
> control centers for everything from our electrical power,
> telecommunications, and transportation, to our trading systems, web
> servers, and corporate portals.

True.

> In fact, most people spend the majority of their time interacting
> with, and getting information from, Linux and UNIX systems.

False. Most people use Windows and MS Office in their personal and work
life, and most corporations use Windows servers.

> > So why?
>
> Just because Microsoft slaps their logo all over the video screen,
> doesn't mean they deserve any credit for your productivity.

You need to take that ignorant statement back.

> IE was
> based on UNIX code, specifically the VIOLA browser, which was then
> ported to Windows 3.1 as Cello, then to NCSA Mosaic. At the time
> Mosaic was written, the NCSA public license was very similar to the
> GNU public license. When Spyglass accidentally sold it to Microsoft,

Your creative wording is rich: "accidentally sold..." Educate yourself here
http://software.ericsink.com/Browser_Wars.html from a guy who worked for
SpyGlass during the time. He was the primary tech guy for integrating it
into Win95. He sounds like he enjoyed the MS deal.

> along with unrestricted modification rights which violated the NCSA
> license, the NCSA rewrote their license, and the Open Source community
> retaliated by publishing all fixes and enhancements to the browser and
> server under GPL. Eventually there were so many patches that the
> combined server became known as "a patchy server". One of the
> developers created a more flexible license known as "the Artistic
> License" and renamed the server Apache. Apache is now the leading
> server on the market.

Yes.

> Microsoft uses a UNIX originated TCP/IP stack.

Unix uses a DoD originated TCP/IP stack.

> They seem to be using a UNIX based scheduler. They have also introduced a
number of other
> "innovations" which originated in as Open Source (Linux) code.

> Active Directory is based LDAP and OpenLDAP,

So is Apple's version, and so is Oracle's.

> DHCP was based on RARP and BOOTP,

So? What does this have to do with the price of coffee? MS never claimed
any particular innovation in the DHCP area.

> DCOM and COM+ were based on CORBA (MICO, Bonobo, J2EE, ...),

And DCOM and ActiveX for Linux are based on MS' DCOM. So?

> Optimizations made to Windows 2000 and Windows XP were based on
> studies of the Linux library management and optimizations.

And optimizations made to Linux are based on studies of MS products.

> Windows itself is based on technology originally developed under Project
Athena.

So is the X Window system for Unix and Linux.

> Microsoft Office is a poor imitation of several UNIX based
> integrated toolkits including FrameMaker, SCO Open Desktop, and
> Applix, all of which preceded Office by years.

LOL! Sorry to say, but you're full of ***. FrameMaker's a good program,
but the others were and are lousy and weren't nearly good enough to inspire
imitation.

> The announcement of Windows NT itself was triggered by the very sudden
> popularity of Sun's IPC and SLC "lunch box" and "pizza box"
> workstations.
>
> The announcement of Windows XP was triggered by the very sudden surge
> in Linux workstation licenses.

Surge? You've surged to 3% of the desktop! Whoa! What a trajectory!

> Microsoft has already been charged with fraud by the FTC during the
> George H Bush administration.

Linux/IBM and others have already been charged with theft by SCO during the
George W. Bush administration.

> Microsoft was able to negotiate a
> hand-slap settlement with the Clinton administration, the now famous
> Windows 9x "Bundling" or "Enhancement" hearings were the net result.
>
> Windows XP was primarily Microsoft's way to force corporate customers
> and OEMs to accept licenses which prevented them from installing Linux
> on Windows workstations (especially WINE with Windows 9x and bochs or
> vmware with NT/2K).

> In many cases, customers were told they didn't even have to install
> the software, they just had to sign the new, more restrictive
> licenses, and pay an increase that ranged from 10% to 300% depending
> on your negotiating skills and how long you waited (the longer you
> waited, the lower the price).

Proof of this absurd claim?

<snip>

> Microsoft isn't much different. They have introduced "innovations"
> (usually stolen from Open Source developers who don't have the
> resources to reverse-engineer the code and the legal resources to
> press an effective lawsuit.

LOL! More creative writing! What open source innovations are in MS
products?

> They introduce only what they absolutely have to, and only when their
> market is directly threatened by a competitor which has captured a
> substantial portion of a "niche" which could indicate a broader market
> share collapse in the near future.

Ridiculous. If you believe this, you haven't been using MS Office for the
last 8-10 years, and don't know the slightest thing about MS software.

> > So why isn't Microsoft out of business since Linux is free?
>
> Microsoft has 4 elements in it's favor.
>
> First, it has almost complete control of the OEM market. The OEM is
> not allowed to install ANYTHING that Microsoft doesn't want installed.
> They have admitted in federal court that they use blackmail,
> extortion, fraud, and obstruction of justice to maintain this control.

Another absurd lie. OEMs can install any software they want. I regularly
see ads for systems with WinXP and WordPerfect Office, or Quicken.

> The federal courts have ruled that these actions are completely
> illegal, and that Microsoft in not allowed to illegally protect it's
> monopoly power or to use it's monopoly power to exclude competitors
> from other markets which could be affected (browsers, virtual
> machines, co-resident operating systems such as Linux, windows
> emulation, 3rd party applications and middleware such as Java, Notes,
> Media Players...). Appearantly the rulings of a full panel of the
> Appellate court have no value, because Microsoft has managed to
> completely nullify the ruling through it's settlement with the
> Ashcroft DOJ.

> Second, Microsoft has a huge marketing budget, which it leverages very
> effectively to control an even more huge marketing budget. Microsoft
> has the ability to control the placement and content of nearly $200
> billion in advertizing, including co-op ads, use of logo restrictions,
> NDAs, and illegal inducements to collusion.

I hope that "billion" is a typo. If not, you're being a typical uninformed
Linux extremist.

> In addition, Microsoft
> can use this to control the editorial content of nearly every major
> mass media outlet. Finally Microsoft has editorial control over 3
> networks and close ties to a 4th. If Microsoft doesn't want a story,
> such as Bill Gates admitting under oath to felony crimes, or viruses
> that are causing $billions in damages in a single day, they can use a
> combination of the BBS, MSNBC.com, MSNBC, CNBC, and FOX to redirect
> the editorial focus to rumors, illegally obtained evidence, or just
> some everyday occurrance like a missing person, a cute refugee, or a
> kidnap/murder of a little girl that happened several years ago. Even
> better is if there is some tittilation, sex, or scandal involved. No
> one is immune, not even presidents Clinton and Bush.

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You're living in some kind of fantasy world, seeing
MS under your bed and in your closet.

> Third - Microsoft has one of the most sophisticated legal teams in the
> world. They are involved from the moment the very first discussion
> with anyone who may have anything of value in terms of intellectual
> property, to the final settlements in federal court with Attourneys
> general from all over the U.S. and most of the rest of the world. If
> Microsoft wants to interview you for a job, you have to sign a
> nondisclosure agreement promising not to discuss anything, including
> the nondisclosure agreement. Everytime you install a piece of
> Microsoft Software, including support packs, security fixes, and even
> "free" software, Microsoft extends it's legal rights, and reduces
> yours.

LOL! Your idiocy never ends. I used NotePad - I'd best contact the ACLU
about my "reduced" rights.

> Most people don't even bother to read the license when it is
> displayed. They assume it's like all of the others. In most cases,
> if these EULA agreements were reveiwed by a lawyer or other competent
> legal advisor, they would immediately tell you NOT to accept those
> license terms. In many cases, you are granting Microsoft permission
> to commit criminal acts against you, to violate court orders with your
> permission, and even to damage your system willfully and maliciously
> (because you are running 3rd party software they don't want you to
> run). Microsoft could deliberately infect your system with a virus,
> and you would have no legal recourse.

I don't want to take the time to read through my Win2000 EULA. You
apparently have, so please quote those sections in which MS is given the
right to violate me and infect my system. You can provide those quotes,
can't you? Didn't think so.

> In addition, nondisclosure
> agreements, no reverse-engineering clauses, and indemnification
> clauses prevent you from even discussing such actions with press,
> prosecutors, law enforcement officers, even your own attourney.
> Effectively, Microsoft maintains legal control over all information in
> your computer, including any personal files (e-mail, web site history,
> office documents, ...).

Again, you can provide proof of all these claims?

> Finally, Microsoft maintains strict control - to the point of fraud,
> over what information may be published to the general media. There is
> nothing they can do about usenet newsgroups (except hire WinTrolls to
> discredit the more persuasive posters), but if a person or company
> publishes market research, benchmarks, bug reports, vulnerabilities,
> or anything else that might "damage the brand value and image" of
> Microsoft, action is swift and effective.

Pure bull***. You're lying, again.

I daily read articles in the newspaper and on the 'Net that are disparaging
to MS and their products. In fact, some MS-neutral to slightly negative
articles are posted on the MSNBC website from time to time.

> Not only will you be
> required to right a retraction, Microsoft controls the content, and
> the basis on which you collect your new "correct" data. The classic
> examples are things like the MindCraft benchmarks between Linux and
> Windows. When Mindcraft compared a "stock" Windows system with a
> "stock" Linux system, Linux was 20% faster. Microsoft told them that
> they had made an error, and gave them new requirements, including a
> bizarre configuration of hardware, an unstable configuration of the
> Windows file-system, the slowest possible configuration of Linux, and
> then re-ran the benchmarks.
>
> Ironically, this only helped identify some seldom encountered but
> legitimate bottlenecks, which the Linux team fixed in the 2.4 kernel.
> Mindcraft ran similar benchmarks in which Linux was substantially
> faster than Windows, but was not allowed to publish this new report -
> because Microsoft refused to give them written permission.

If MS controlled that content, how do you know about it? And MS isn't alone
in controlling benchmark data; many if not most tech companies, hardware
especially, try to control those kinds of things.

> > Answer is LINUX SUXXXXX.....
>
> Actually, it's Microsoft that does the sucking. Microsoft sucks the
> budgets of IT departments for as much as possible, limiting it's
> ability to explore alternatives to Microsoft.

??? But directly above you just said there was a surge in sales of Linux
servers? And you claim Apache is the leading web server (it is). If IT is
limited by MS, why so many installations of non-MS products.

> Of course this also
> limits the ability to do any other development of stategic value. If
> you're spending $1 million/thousand users every year for Microsoft
> related mandatory upgrades, maintenance, and lost time, there's not
> much left for the B2B projects, or any other non-Microsoft related
> projects.

HAHAHAHA!!! Yet millions of Apache and Unix projects get completed? How is
that, if MS is wasting everyone's time and money?

> Microsoft sucks the life out of the OEMs as well. When Microsoft is
> offering you the choice of having the "freedom" to install Linux (but
> with little or no Microsoft support for Windows as a result), or
> getting discounts equivalent to 30% in the form of incentives for
> using Windows-only hardware, Windows-only advertizing, Windows-only
> web sites, Windows only phone sales, and Windows-only help-desks, and
> you're already losing 2-3% on every machine you sell (profits come
> through extended warrentees, MSN sign-up rebates, and other Microsoft
> "kickbacks", you realize that to refuse the deal means that you will
> be losing 30% or more on each machine. This is the ultimate "suck".

But the market wants Microsoft installed on their machines. Just the other
day one of the Linux morons quoted HP as selling 100,000 Linux PCs per
quarter (which represents less than 2% of their sales). Dell tried selling
Linux PC's; nobody would buy them, so they quit. Flip through Computer
Shopper and see how many Linux installations are offered. Nearly ZERO.
These OEMs make very little money on the OS.

> These tactics are effective. They are illegal (but you agreed to them
> anyway, therefore cannot prosecute), they are direct violations of
> court rulings against Microsoft (but again you waived your rights),
> and you have no legal recourse other than to stop using Microsoft
> products entitrely (which most organizations are unwilling to do).
>
> Historically, each market in the IT industry has had a point where the
> entire market "Snapped".

You snapped sometime around the 2nd sentence in this post.

> When DEC kept wiping UNIX off of VAX systems
> to install VMS and perform "service upgrades", guards were posted at
> the entrance with orders to shoot anyone who tried to get to the
> computer room without authorization. DEC eventually lost the whole
> minicomputer market to UNIX.
>
> In 1992, when IBM attempted to force all of their MVS customers to
> shell out $6 million in upgrade fees for a machine which originally
> cost only $4 million and was already 3 years old, customers began
> exploring SMP and NUMA based UNIX systems.

> Microsoft almost lost the market to Linux in 1993.

LOL! Dream on.

> When Microsoft
> attempted to force corporate customers to upgrade to Windows NT 3.x,
> even though it would not run most of the available 3rd party software,
> Novell was waiting in the wings with UNIXWare, Linux was commercially
> available, and Sun was pushing Solaris. Microsoft was able to
> convince the board of directors at Novell that if they halted
> development of the UnixWare workstation and fired all of the
> workstation developers, that Microsoft would cancel it's development
> of NT Server. Ray Noorda quit Novell, hired the laid off workers and
> formed Caldera, which almost became a credible threat to NT 3.x.

> Microsoft kept Linux and Solaris out of the press by pulling the
> full-page ads it controlled from any magazine that praised Linux or
> Solaris.

Why do I think this is more bull***? Because it is. MS actively PLACES
full-page ads in Linux magazines.

> The biggest casualty was Byte Magazine, which McGraw-Hill
> had to sell because Microsoft was pulling ads from Business-Week and
> many of it's other 160+ publications.

You're a pitiful liar. Byte shut down in '98 due to business problems. It
had nothing to do with Microsoft, in fact, the majority of Byte's editorial
content was WinTel related.

Here, educate yourself via the Byte Senior Editor from '92 to '98:
http://www.halfhill.com/bytefaq.html#Q3

> In mid 1994, Linux had plug-and-play capability. It was first
> introduced by yddragasil, and was quickly adopted by Red Hat, who also
> offered a more powerful "Package Manager" scheme. These two features
> made it possible for Red Hat to quickly configure itself to almost any
> of the commonly available computers of the time (VLB, EISA,
> Micro-Channel, ESA) with minimal manual settings. It also had the
> ability to transform a Windows 3.1 system into a "dual boot" system by
> resizing the partitions and installing a "boot manager". Bill Gates
> took one look at this, told his team that Chicago couldn't be released
> until it not only had it's own plug-and-play, but also prevented Linux
> from installing itself. Chicago was delayed almost 12 months as a
> result.

> Even today, Microsoft has tried to use the XP EULA to prevent Linux
> from taking control of the desktop. Microsoft insists that you can
> only access an XP desktop from an XP machine. This means that you can
> put XP on your main desktop and run Linux with VNC access, but you
> can't legally use VNC on Linux to access a Windows XP worktation
> display. The fact that this provision is illegal doesn't seem to
> preven Microsoft from demanding it, and doesn't prevent corporate and
> individual users from accepting it.

I'll look into this one on XP. I'll be surprised if you're stating the
truth.

Microsoft supports WINS clients on Linux and Unix.

> What is extraordinary isn't that Linux only has 3, 5, or 15% of the
> market, but that it has managed to capture 3, 5, or 15% of the market
> with minimal resources, minimal advertizing, minimal organization, and
> has done so against a behemoth monopoly that made AT&T seem benign.

What do you mean minimal resources and advertising? IBM dedicated at least
$1 billion to Linux development, and constantly runs Linux on eServer ads.
The tech magazines are chock full of Linux ads and articles. MSNBC runs
many articles about Linux (www.msnbc.com).

Also, you underestimate the Linux organizational effectiveness, at least on
the Web. It's very easy to find Linux info, new packages, bug reports, news
stories, etc.

Rex, at the beginning of this response, I said you made some good points
here and there. I have to say now, though, that what very few truthful
points you did make have been completely overshadowed by a continuous string
of lies and hysterics, many of which I've completely and happily disproven.

Enjoy.