From: Ann Conn <AnnMor...@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: is WABI dead?, no 3.0 ver, no win32 support Date: 1997/09/03 Message-ID: <340D12A9.3F0@worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 269685699 References: <340419F2.D3AB55E@dial.pipex.com> <5u26qt$m0f@netix.org.uk> <340531C2.345C9848@dial.pipex.com> <m2wwl68ulk.fsf@shodan.demon.co.uk> <340BF804.4967E162@ast.cam.ac.uk> <340C67B7.62E7@ericson.com> Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: AnnMor...@worldnet.att.net Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux,caldera,comp.os.llinux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc. Win95 software is largely bloatware garbage. Why would you want to foul your Linux environment with it? It is time to get over it. Find a way to use what is already available for Linux instead or start a develoment effort to create what you really need. We don't need the generally poorly written Win software messing with our memory space. .B.
From: Mark Bickel <Mark....@ericson.com> Subject: Re: is WABI dead?, no 3.0 ver, no win32 support Date: 1997/09/04 Message-ID: <340F159C.7C5F@ericson.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 269893373 References: <340419F2.D3AB55E@dial.pipex.com> <5u26qt$m0f@netix.org.uk> <340531C2.345C9848@dial.pipex.com> <m2wwl68ulk.fsf@shodan.demon.co.uk> <340BF804.4967E162@ast.cam.ac.uk> <340C67B7.62E7@ericson.com> <340D12A9.3F0@worldnet.att.net> Organization: Ericsson Inc., Network Systems div. Reply-To: Mark....@ericson.com Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc Ann Conn wrote: > > Win95 software is largely bloatware garbage. Generalization without quantification is cheap rhetoric. > Why would you want to foul your Linux environment with it? That is not the point I was discussing. I can keep my _personal_ PC MS-and- Windows-free. What I was discussing was capabilities that many companies will insist upon when considering the suitability of an OS for their corporate _desktop_ : i.e. the capability of running software they've already purchased, and may not be able to justify replacing with something else. > It is time to get over it. Thanks for the very constructive advice. You obviously are more in tune with my needs than I am myself. Perhaps I'll post to you again when I need to know what I should be doing with the rest of my life. > Find a way to use what is already available for Linux instead or start a > develoment effort to create what you really need. You don't seem to be getting it. This is not about what I need personally. This is about what _Linux_ needs to capture more of the desktop market. > We don't need the generally poorly written Win software messing with our > memory space. > .B. Thanks for speaking for the entire Linux community. Who elected you spokeperson? Typical elitist response from someone who obviously doesn't understand the issues that concern large companies' software purchasing decisions. The issues I was posting about have absolutely _nothing_ to do with the relative merits of Linux vs. Win95/NT software. They do speak directly to the issue of whether Linux will be able to compete effectively in the battle for the corporate desktop/workstation OS marketshare. BTW, I've been running Linux since Fall of '94. I have been an active and enthusiastic advocate for the merits of Linux vs. MSwindoze. I have responded to numerous requests for help w/ HW, SW, install problems from Linux newbies. Also, I'm a founding member of North Texas Linux Users Group, http://www.ntlug.org where we promote Linux by installing it for free at our monthly L.I.P. events. Cheers, -- Mark....@ericsson.com Ericsson Inc., Network Systems (USA) All opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. __ _ / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | Why Linux? Because Blue Screens / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | [Draw liquids by creating a /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | partial vaccuum]
From: c...@nospam.netix.org.uk (C. Newport) Subject: Re: is WABI dead?, no 3.0 ver, no win32 support Date: 1997/09/20 Message-ID: <601kid$5h4@netix.org.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 274151590 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: netix.demon.co.uk [158.152.40.193] References: <5vc1ep$png$1@skylark.ucr.edu> <5vmm12$mdc$1@news.enterprise.net> <5vnrac$4qo@polo.demon.co.uk> <EGp9qL.Kv1@dlpinc00.com> Followup-To: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc Organization: The Netix Consultancy Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc Bringing this thread back onto the original topic ..... Insignia have launched Softwindows95, which runs all 32-bin windows applications in a X session. It's in the new Transtec catalogue, versions available for HP-UX, Solaris, SunOS, AIX, or Irix. No Linux version listed, and at pounds 420 it probably wont appeal to home users. OTOH, a 64 user licence is probably good value compared to maintaining a flock of PCs running Windoze. Add some NCs and some Cat5, stir well, and it could convert a sysadmin's nightmare into sea of tranquility. OTOH, the Office97 bugs will still be there..... -- To reply to newsgroup messages please remove the spamtrap from my address. Email is not affected. Website: http://www.netix.org.uk/ C. Newport, The NetUnix Consultancy, Clevedon, North Somerset, UK.
From: Mark Bickel <Mark....@ericson.com> Subject: Re: is WABI dead?, no 3.0 ver, no win32 support Date: 1997/09/26 Message-ID: <342C13A7.6C34@ericson.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 275816433 References: <5vc1ep$png$1@skylark.ucr.edu> <5vmm12$mdc$1@news.enterprise.net> <5vnrac$4qo@polo.demon.co.uk> <EGp9qL.Kv1@dlpinc00.com> <601kid$5h4@netix.org.uk> Organization: Ericsson Inc., Network Systems div. Reply-To: Mark....@ericson.com Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc,comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine C. Newport wrote: > > Bringing this thread back onto the original topic ..... As the one who started this thread, thanks! > Insignia have launched Softwindows95, which runs all 32-bin windows > applications in a X session. It's in the new Transtec catalogue, versions > available for HP-UX, Solaris, SunOS, AIX, or Irix. > > No Linux version listed, And since insignia has licensed Win95 and NT source code from M$, and linux runs on (among others) the intel platform, could it just possibly be that M$ has gotten an agreement from insignia _not_ to port it to linux and/or other (competing) operating systems which run on the intel platform???? I'm not saying I know this is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me either, and who in a comp.os.*.advocacy group doesn't love a good Conspiracy Theory? > and at pounds 420 it probably won't appeal to home users. How about a single or 2-person license? I have also seen that many times the Linux ports are priced less than for other (high-priced) unices (HP-UX,IRIX). > OTOH, a 64 user licence is probably good value compared to > maintaining a flock of PCs running Windoze. Add some NCs and some Cat5, > stir well, and it could convert a sysadmin's nightmare into sea of > tranquility. That was the point of my orig post. Linux has advanced to the point now where the only (or at least the main) thing holding it back from commercial viability as a _desktop/client_ machine is the ability to run win32 apps, which many potential corporate users have already invested considerable time and money in. WABI, SoftWindows95, WINE, Willows, but someone has to produce a stable and _supported_ fully win32 compliant emulator _SOON,_NOW,_YESTERDAY_ALREADY_DAMMIT. And please don't flame me by saying "why don't you help wine then?" That is not my area of expertise. I help where I can (telephony) - check out the LTP - Linux Telephony Project at: http://home.t-online.de/home/ingo.marks/index.htm > OTOH, the Office97 bugs will still be there..... "undocumented features" that will be "enhanced" in a "new version" in the "near future", which will be "heavily discounted" to encourage you to "upgrade". Orwell's "newspeak" as "enhanced" by that li'l ol' company from Redmond, WA ;^) Cheers, > -- > To reply to newsgroup messages please remove the spamtrap from my address. > Email is not affected. Website: http://www.netix.org.uk/ > C. Newport, The NetUnix Consultancy, Clevedon, North Somerset, UK. -- Mark....@ericsson.com Ericsson Inc., Network Systems (USA) __ _ / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | Why Linux? Because Blue Screens / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | [Draw liquids by creating a /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | partial vaccuum]
From: Jason Sharpee <jas...@dynamic-realities.com> Subject: Re: is WABI dead?, no 3.0 ver, no win32 support Date: 1997/09/27 Message-ID: <342C9E35.796A9B0D@dynamic-realities.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 275923132 References: <5vc1ep$png$1@skylark.ucr.edu> <5vmm12$mdc$1@news.enterprise.net> <5vnrac$4qo@polo.demon.co.uk> <EGp9qL.Kv1@dlpinc00.com> <601kid$5h4@netix.org.uk> <342C13A7.6C34@ericson.com> Organization: Exec-PC BBS Internet - Milwaukee, WI Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc,comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine > That was the point of my orig post. Linux has advanced to the point now where > the only (or at least the main) thing holding it back from commercial viability > as a _desktop/client_ machine is the ability to run win32 apps, which many > potential corporate users have already invested considerable time and money in. > > WABI, SoftWindows95, WINE, Willows, but someone has to produce a stable and > _supported_ fully win32 compliant emulator _SOON,_NOW,_YESTERDAY_ALREADY_DAMMIT. I couldnt agree with you more on that. I am amazed when browsing through comp.emu * and finding emulators for just about every game platform out there, including rumors of several PSX emulators, yet there is not one that can emulate the Wintel platform on an Intel machine! People are reverse engineering the most obscure chips and proprietary logic in the quest for a wider variety of entertainment, but no one seems to care about anything to do with productivity. I think it would be a _MAJOR_ impact on the computing world if Linux could run Win32 apps and lessen the threat of MS dominance in the future. BTW: Willows is no longer being developed.. I looked into it for a solution to porting a MFC app to Solaris, and found that the source code was freely distributed, yet broken. I wrote Insignia about a version of SoftWin 95 for Linux, and they told me that they had no intentions of porting it to an Intel platform or Linux on any other platform. Sounds to me like MS and Insignia are in bed together. I would also keep an eye on Rhapsody.. Bringing UNIX to the home user is going to be a very interesting event. Lets hope Jobs doesnt screw that up. Maybe the developers of WINE should go commercial and get some corporate funding? I sure as hell wouldnt mind paying $200+ /per copy to get this disgusting Microsoft OS off of my machine forever. -Jason ---- jas...@dynamic-realities.com
From: fearl-no-spam-@-no-spam-airmail.net-no-spam- (Frank C. Earl) Subject: Re: is WABI dead?, no 3.0 ver, no win32 support Date: 1997/09/29 Message-ID: <202C37DC1B5FDD7E.D85E3942F7831B35.2BD9E03E58BCBAE9@library-proxy.airnews.net> #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 276494981 References: <5vc1ep$png$1@skylark.ucr.edu> <5vmm12$mdc$1@news.enterprise.net> <5vnrac$4qo@polo.demon.co.uk> <EGp9qL.Kv1@dlpinc00.com> <601kid$5h4@netix.org.uk> <342C13A7.6C34@ericson.com> <342C9E35.796A9B0D@dynamic-realities.com> X-Orig-Message-ID: <342ff37b...@news.airmail.net> NNTP-Posting-Time: Mon Sep 29 13:50:22 1997 Reply-To: fearl-no-spam-@-no-spam-airmail.net-no-spam- Organization: Earl Consulting Services NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library.airnews.net Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc,comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 00:48:37 -0500, Jason Sharpee <jas...@dynamic-realities.com> wrote: >I couldnt agree with you more on that. I am amazed when browsing through comp.emu >* and finding emulators for just about every game platform out there, including >rumors of several PSX emulators, yet there is not one that can emulate the Wintel >platform on an Intel machine! People are reverse engineering the most obscure >chips and proprietary logic in the quest for a wider variety of entertainment, but >no one seems to care about anything to do with productivity. Yeah, I've noticed that as I've been following the emulation scene of late. I think it has something to do with the fact that emulation of Windows isn't cool to the same crowd as the emulator crowd. Many of the emulators out there (with only a few notable exceptions like Executor) are being written by kids hacking on their computers. Nothing wrong with that, but it explains why there's no world-class Windows emulator. It doesn't allow them to attempt to play things like Tekken 2 or Battle Arena Toshinden on their PCs. Part of the problem with a commercial or free emulation solution for Windows is that the API is actually rather complex (Moreso than doing an emulation for a game console) and MS keeps changing the rules about once every one to two years. >I think it would be a _MAJOR_ impact on the computing world if Linux could run Win32 >apps and lessen the threat of MS dominance in the future. Indeed. Problem is that Windows is even more esoteric by far than MOST of the game consoles. Worse, MS keeps changing the damn thing to keep people on their toes so they won't bullseye the API so that they get more than 80% compliance. >BTW: Willows is no longer being developed.. I looked into it for a solution to porting a >MFC app to Solaris, and found that the source code was freely distributed, yet broken. Which makes me wonder a little bit about their claims of being nearly 100% compatible with Windows. Hell, they had ads that touted the ability of Willows TWIN being able to support OCXes, etc. I don't see any of that in the 3.1 implementation that they're distributing. (Maybe they're holding back something there, I don't know...) >I wrote Insignia about a version of SoftWin 95 for Linux, and they told me that >they had no intentions of porting it to an Intel platform or Linux on any other >platform. Sounds to me like MS and Insignia are in bed together. From the sounds of it, it sounds that way to me too. >I would also keep an eye on Rhapsody.. Bringing UNIX to the home user is going to >be a very interesting event. Lets hope Jobs doesnt screw that up. One can hope. Thing is, he screwed it up before with NeXT and again with NeXTStep. Great ideas he had- but he priced them clean out of the real market both times. >Maybe the developers of WINE should go commercial and get some corporate funding? >I sure as hell wouldnt mind paying $200+ /per copy to get this disgusting >Microsoft OS off of my machine forever. Indeed. Thing is, we've expended a lot of man-hours just to get to a stage that could be called late alpha for WINE. How long is it going to take to emulate Win32? IBM gave up on Windows emulation as a criteria because it was just hurting OS/2 native app development. (Which, begs the question, do we REALLY want to do the same to Linux?) -- Frank C. Earl Earl Consulting Services --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to USC 47, there is a $500 per incident charge for each and every piece of Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE) sent to this or any of my other addresses. Sending UCE's to any of my addresses implys general acceptance of these terms. (My Return addresses are _deliberately_ broken to interfere with mailing list generators- remove "-no-spam-" every place in the address to reply.)
From: cri...@helix.cse.ogi.edu (Crispin Cowan) Subject: Re: is WABI dead?, no 3.0 ver, no win32 support Date: 1997/10/01 Message-ID: <60s7mm$k1t@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 276949121 References: <5vc1ep$png$1@skylark.ucr.edu> <342C13A7.6C34@ericson.com> <342C9E35.796A9B0D@dynamic-realities.com> <202C37DC1B5FDD7E.D85E3942F7831B35.2BD9E03E58BCBAE9@library-proxy.airnews.net> Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (OGI), Portland, Oregon Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc,comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine In article <202C37DC1B5FDD7E.D85E3942...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, >Indeed. Thing is, we've expended a lot of man-hours just to get to a >stage that could be called late alpha for WINE. How long is it going >to take to emulate Win32? IBM gave up on Windows emulation as a >criteria because it was just hurting OS/2 native app development. >(Which, begs the question, do we REALLY want to do the same to Linux?) Yes. Yes yes yes YES. I want Win32 emulation on my Linux box. I want it really, really badly. It goes like this. I have EXTERNAL requirements to meet: people want documents & products in particular formats that I have no control over. These formats can only be accessed using software that runs only on Win95 and Mac platforms, e.g. Word, PowerPoint, etc. Meeting these requirements is not a choice, it is a requirement. Right now, I do that using WABI. In the future, the "standard" format will shift to things that don't run on WABI, and I'll have to dual-boot the machine to be able to work on these documents, and I don't wanna do that. Worse yet, I may end up having to lose the Linux side, just to stay compatible. Linux kicks ass. It really is better on its merrits. But it is NOT a large enough market to support a lot of native apps, at least not yet Yes, I know about Applix and Corel WordPerfect; what I need is Word and FrameMaker. IMHO, the path to Linux acceptance is to support Win32 native apps, and let the OS win on its merrits over NT: -cost of ownership -stability -resource consumption -open source code Once the OS can run wide-spread applications, then it MIGHT win wide-spread acceptance. Once it wins wide-spread acceptance, then vendors can BEGIN to consider coding to it. This is how you crack the chicken&egg problem of a system being popular enough to support apps, and at the same time having enough apps to become popular. Crispin ----- Crispin Cowan, Research Assistant Professor of Computer Science Oregon Graduate Institute | Electronically: Department of Computer Science | analog: 503-690-1265 PO Box 91000 | digital: cri...@cse.ogi.edu Portland, OR 97291-1000 | URL: http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~crispin/ Knowledge is to Wisdom as Data is to Code
From: cri...@helix.cse.ogi.edu (Crispin Cowan) Subject: Re: is WABI dead?, no 3.0 ver, no win32 support Date: 1997/10/01 Message-ID: <60tutm$ink@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 277091558 References: <5vc1ep$png$1@skylark.ucr.edu> <202C37DC1B5FDD7E.D85E3942F7831B35.2BD9E03E58BCBAE9@library-proxy.airnews.net> <60s7mm$k1t@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> <slrn633o1f.c0.rsteiner@skypoint.com> Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (OGI), Portland, Oregon Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc,comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine In article <slrn633o1f....@skypoint.com>, Richard Steiner <rste...@skypoint.com> wrote: >Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Crispin Cowan <cri...@helix.cse.ogi.edu> >spake unto us, saying: >>I have EXTERNAL requirements to meet: people want documents & products >>in particular formats that I have no control over. >Out of curiosity: Would making an attempt to change the attitude towards >proprietary data files be easier than attempting to duplicate a moving >target like the Win32 API? I sincerely doubt it. I agree with you that people SHOULD change their attitudes towards proprietary data, but I do not believe that they WILL. If I don't get win32 support on my linux box, I will be forced to dump linux long before any attitudinal changes occur. Naturally, I'm upset about this, and thus I REALLY want some kind of win32 emulator for Linux. >IBM had the programming resources, and MS just kept moving the sticks a >little bit every time OS/2's WinOS2 support almost got to the point of >completion. That is not a very good situation to be in, either. Is that really how it happened? I thought IBM had other problems? In particular, the win32 "reference" platform (Windows 95) has been stable for two years now. IBM gave up a LONG time ago. In addition, MS has to hit 2 targets now, in that they care a lot that apps run both on Win95 (and presently Win98) and also on NT, which has a very different architecture. I understand that it is hard to do. I argue that it is essential for Linux's survival. It is certainly essential for Linux's survival in my office, and I'm a Linux die-hard. And it has been done before, several times: -Insignia emulates win32 for SGI and SPARC/Solaris machines -VirtualPC emulates win32 for Macintosh -Windows NT emulates Windows 95 on the NT "microkernel" Conclusin: It's possible. It's important. Lets DO it. If anyone has a product, I'll buy it. I bought WABI 2.2 for Linux the day it came out. Crispin ----- Crispin Cowan, Research Assistant Professor of Computer Science Oregon Graduate Institute | Electronically: Department of Computer Science | analog: 503-690-1265 PO Box 91000 | digital: cri...@cse.ogi.edu Portland, OR 97291-1000 | URL: http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~crispin/ Knowledge is to Wisdom as Data is to Code
From: char...@ms.sigh.net Subject: Re: is WABI dead?, no 3.0 ver, no win32 support Date: 1997/10/02 Message-ID: <MPG.e9dae9e78503f899896b9@news.idt.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 277367146 References: <5vc1ep$png$1@skylark.ucr.edu> <202C37DC1B5FDD7E.D85E3942F7831B35.2BD9E03E58BCBAE9@library-proxy.airnews.net> <60s7mm$k1t@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> <slrn633o1f.c0.rsteiner@skypoint.com> <60tutm$ink@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> Organization: IDT Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc,comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine > Conclusin: It's possible. It's important. Lets DO it. If anyone has > a product, I'll buy it. I bought WABI 2.2 for Linux the day it came out. I agree. My reason for using Windows over other OSs as a desktop OS, right now, is because overall I think the GUI is the slickest and I like the applications available for it and there is not an alternative quite as complete and cohesive available. However, I am looking for alternatives and eagerly await their arrival. While I don't recommend taking away MS's participation rights entirely, I do recommend that MS be put on probation. What I really hate about Windows, is the dark soul of the corporation it is associated with. People at MS are arrogant, unethical and greedy as evidenced by MS's actions: Arrogant because they believe their design-to-benefit-MS paradigm is appropriate for standard setting and greedy for marketing their technologies via smoke and mirrors to the unsuspecting instead of allowing their technologies to stand alone on technical merits and _appropriateness_. MS doesn't invent most of the technologies it attempts to patent, trademark etc. Part of MS's mission is to abstract common knowledge into proprietary technologies (layered COM is the latest and greatest MS inpropriety that reeks of attempted control and restriction of freedom). As MS "digs in" and attempts to restrict the freedom of those using its products, the users will more and more reject MS no matter how capable their products become. Some of MSs ideas are good but their ethics and actions overshadow any good that they do. Windows place is as a GUI choice and mega-device driver only; as a product on which to base futures on or to act as a foundation, Windows is a failure; in the group of respected companies with high morals and ethics, MS will be left out of the that history of the world. The soon to be leader corporations will reestablish business ethics and those guilty of past unethical behavior will not be allowed to participate without extreme sacrifice for their wrongful doings at the human level. People like to feel good about the things they do and most will not want to be associated with the "personality" that MS exhibits and be left with the bad after taste. I feel sorry for those who will have to say they have worked for MS and especially those who set the policy and practices (well no, not the latter). Most will simply not want to associate with those people for any reason any more than they would invite the war criminals of WW II to dinner. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. MS has demonstrated that it can not handle a position of responsibity in the big picture of society and is only capable of being a seller of goods who must be scrutinized at every step and one who's products must also be examined for hidden agendas before purchase. But I digress ... What were we talking about? ;) anonymous
From: bk...@pathfinder.markelcorp.com (Brian Knox) Subject: Re: is WABI dead?, no 3.0 ver, no win32 support Date: 1997/10/03 Message-ID: <slrn639pls.n6d.bknox@pathfinder.markelcorp.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 277820743 References: <5vc1ep$png$1@skylark.ucr.edu> <202C37DC1B5FDD7E.D85E3942F7831B35.2BD9E03E58BCBAE9@library-proxy.airnews.net> <60s7mm$k1t@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> <slrn633o1f.c0.rsteiner@skypoint.com> <60tutm$ink@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> <MPG.e9dae9e78503f899896b9@news.idt.net> Organization: i2020 -- Richmond's internet partner. http://www.i2020.net Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc,comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine On Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:14:43 -0500, char...@ms.sigh.net <char...@ms.sigh.net> wrote: > >I agree. My reason for using Windows over other OSs as a desktop OS, >right now, is because overall I think the GUI is the slickest and I like >the applications available for it and there is not an alternative quite >as complete and cohesive available. However, I am looking for >alternatives and eagerly await their arrival. While I don't recommend >taking away MS's participation rights entirely, I do recommend that MS be >put on probation. What I really hate about Windows, is the dark soul of >the corporation it is associated with. People at MS are arrogant, >unethical and greedy as evidenced by MS's actions: Arrogant because they >believe their design-to-benefit-MS paradigm is appropriate for standard >setting and greedy for marketing their technologies via smoke and mirrors >to the unsuspecting instead of allowing their technologies to stand alone >on technical merits and _appropriateness_. That's because their technologies can't stand alone on technical merits. Their consumer OS (Windows 95) is incredibly far behind other operating systems. While I'm not a big Mac fan, I've used them enough to know that the Macintosh GUI is superior in both ease of use and power and that MacOS as a whole is more stable. As far as what's behind the scenes, Windows 95 is a sad hybrid of 16 and 32 bit code which is neither fast, efficient, or stable. As for Windows NT...what can be said about an OS that barely runs in 32 meg of ram? Windows NT is inefficient, a pain to administer and configure, does not scale well (single threaded disk access?? On a server??) and does not handle heavy user loads well at all. Novell, while imperfect, is far more robust than NT, and now with NDS is far easier to administer at the enterprise level. UNIX is far more robust, scales better, is easier to administer remotely and is more stable. What technical merits does Microsoft have to stand on?
From: "Brian" <brian_t...@rocketship.com> Subject: Re: is WABI dead?, no 3.0 ver, no win32 support Date: 1997/10/04 Message-ID: <01bcd0cc$715f2d60$LocalHost@bongo.mdi.ca> X-Deja-AN: 278183636 References: <5vc1ep$png$1@skylark.ucr.edu> <202C37DC1B5FDD7E.D85E3942F7831B35.2BD9E03E58BCBAE9@library-proxy.airnews.net> <60s7mm$k1t@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> <slrn633o1f.c0.rsteiner@skypoint.com> <60tutm$ink@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> <MPG.e9dae9e78503f899896b9@news.idt.net> <slrn639pls.n6d.bknox@pathfinder.markelcorp.com> Organization: English Bay Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc,comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine Hi: Far be it for me to be an apologist for Microsoft but I feel a comment is desperately warranted. Brian Knox <bk...@pathfinder.markelcorp.com> wrote in article <slrn639pls...@pathfinder.markelcorp.com>... > On Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:14:43 -0500, char...@ms.sigh.net > <char...@ms.sigh.net> wrote: > > (snip) > >What I really hate about Windows, is the dark soul of > >the corporation it is associated with. People at MS are arrogant, > >unethical and greedy as evidenced by MS's actions: Arrogant because they > >believe their design-to-benefit-MS paradigm is appropriate for standard > >setting and greedy for marketing their technologies via smoke and mirrors > >to the unsuspecting instead of allowing their technologies to stand alone > >on technical merits and _appropriateness_. Hate??? As an active participant in desktop computing from the very beginning, I have to state that MS and Bill Gates have done more for the mass computer consuming public than any other for-profit organization 'PERIOD'. > That's because their technologies can't stand alone on technical merits. > Their consumer OS (Windows 95) is incredibly far behind other operating > systems. While I'm not a big Mac fan, I've used them enough to know > that the Macintosh GUI is superior in both ease of use and power and > that MacOS as a whole is more stable. As far as what's behind the > scenes, Windows 95 is a sad hybrid of 16 and 32 bit code which is > neither fast, efficient, or stable. The 16bit/32bit W95 was and still is a boon to the multitude of installed IBM compatible platform users. The total cost of changing all the available and installed software to 32bit mode was insurmountable over the short life-span of W95. It was a compromise product that suited the needs of the vast majority of the consuming public at the right time and at the right price. The demise of the superior Next computer system is proof positive that the lack of economical productive software will kill a hardware/software platform. As regards the MAC OS, I can't disagree enough. The MAC OS is very pretty and somewhat efficient in specialized areas but it is not really multi-tasking, can be very unstable and is only operable on a tiny percentage of desktop hardware. The hardware is grossly overpriced (even now) and the past is littered with a multitude of incompatible bus strategies and connectivity dead ends. The culture of "Not Made Here" still pervades the hardware/software Apple mindset. MS Windows ships or provides access to literally 100's perhaps 1000's of hardware drivers whereas the exact opposite is the policy of the Apple Mac. The Apple corporation actively suppressed the publication of effective low cost alternative GUI interfaces through legal-system intimidation that kept the far cheaper IBM compatible platform out of the running for years. It was Apple's position that if you wanted a desktop GUI you had to purchase one of their overpriced MAC desk-warts. It was MS, not IBM or Digital Research, that took an expensive stand against Apple in the courts and won. MS is also responsible for breaking the stranglehold Adobe had on scalable screen/printer fonts for acceptable (not perfect) WYSIWYG with the introduction of TrueType. I still remember spending ~ $100 on a single Adobe font. Adobe type fonts are still around for those that need them but the monopoly is gone. MS is also responsible for bringing cheap desktop networking, cheap word processing, cheap spreadsheets and cheap database programs to market. I once paid more for a single copy of Lotus 123 than I now pay for an entire suite of office applications. It doesn't have to be perfect, or even the best - it just has to be of acceptable quality and functionality to the public and business consumers. The short history of the desktop computer is replete with MS economical firsts. > As for Windows NT...what can be said about an OS that barely runs > in 32 meg of ram? Windows NT is inefficient, a pain to administer > and configure, does not scale well (single threaded disk access?? > On a server??) and does not handle heavy user loads well at all. The biggest problem NT4 server has is it's price and lack of maturity. It is not bad software, it is just new. I personally prefer Linux and FreeBSD because of it's cost of operation (different from price), maturity, economy of resources and superior utility over MS' NT4. I believe MS will continue to enhance NT until it is every bit as capable as Linux but it will never be able to compete with the cost of operation of a Linux system. As for a 32 meg memory requirement, who cares? Memory is cheap and getting cheaper every day. Linux loves lots of memory as well (NT4 and Linux rely heavily on disk caching which is memory intensive). > Novell, while imperfect, is far more robust than NT, and now with > NDS is far easier to administer at the enterprise level. UNIX > is far more robust, scales better, is easier to administer remotely > and is more stable. Novell??? 'Everything is a Profit Center' Novell??? Having delt with Novell from time to time (not recently) I can attest to the fact that Novell has exceeded in squeezing out every penny it could from it's clients and supporters at every possible opportunity. As for arrogance, they invented the concept in the early 90's. It should also be noted they are another outfit who have used the courts extravagantly to squash competition. They were successful in preventing some vital portions of freely distributed BSD code (Unix) from remaining within the public domain. They relied mainly on their ability to crush the opposition with costly and drawn out court maneuvers. They won the battle but the last laugh is on them; A group of talented and dedicated programmers worked long and hard to develop and present free to the world the missing pieces of Unix code and created the Unix clone, FreeBSD. For a more detailed history of FreeBSD, check out www.freebsd.org (I think). > What technical merits does Microsoft have to stand on? Well, they have built the most widely used and accepted desktop operating system in the world and sold it for a mere pittance compared to any other offering (with the exception of the free Unix variants). It is also the most widely supported OS as regards productive tools; The Mac doesn't hold a candle to W95 despite some decidedly deceptive advertising (If you install an accessory board in a MAC which is in fact an entire populated WINTEL motherboard, can you really claim that the Mac is running the W95 software or is it just being an outrageously expensive graphical terminal?) MS has created and supports the very best desktop operating system 'W95' that will run both 16bit DOS/GUI legacy and 32bit GUI applications and the huge installed base of games and proprietary software for the massive and diverse IBM compatible platform. It is not perfect because perfection is unaffordable for the mass consuming market. I use W95, NT4, Linux (3 flavors) and FreeBSD 2.2.2 on my desktop home computers. I love Linux for it's robust efficient power and total freedom and I see a tremendous future for it on home desktop and business multi-user/server/development platforms. Linux is my hobby and I hope to make it a part of my livelyhood in the future. The Linux desktop platform is capable of amazing and superior automation that DOS and MS Windows (any flavor) cannot begin to approach. I believe the business community at large is just beginning to see the light when faced with purchasing a multitude of licenses of an $800 OS to run a number of _____ servers (Fill in the blanks: print, fax, web, news, pager, mail, ftp, BBS, portmaster, DNS, router, file, database, POS, automation, CS instruction, closetware...) when a powerful unix variant like Linux and FreeBSD are available for the cost of some books and CD-ROMs. Throw in the fact that Linux et al comes complete with source code for itself and almost all of the applications and utilities that ship with it puts it in the lead as one of the greatest treasures of our time. (Thank you Linus and everybody who has contributed to the cause) WABI - who needs it, that is not Linux's strength; It is probably drifting into oblivion because it is a square peg in a round whole (spelling intentional). I couldn't imagine running MS Office 95 in Linux; It wasn't all that stable in W95 so why create havoc on my Linux box? Can you imagine phoning MS and complaining about a bug while running MS Office 95 in Linux??? If I wish to do word processing in Linux, I will use a non-GUI version of Word Perfect (one of my favorites) or one of the new GUI offerings from Applixware and/or others. Text processing is Linux's area of expertise and the applications are free. I admire and have respect for any and all who have created and toiled on the WABI project because their talents and abilities are far greater than mine and the vast majority of fellow earthlings. They saw a problem and have labored to create a solution, and for that they deserve our respect and thanks. I suggest their talents and efforts will be better served on other more worthy projects. One final point - I am totally amazed that certain computer writers have made a career of spitting venom at MS. John Devorak has been on point for years in the "MS and Bill Gates are evil because ______", (once again, fill in the blanks). I have worked and lived in the computer environment every bit as long as John has and I have rarely known him to be correct in any of his substantial prognostications. His recollection of facts is often at odds with reality as well and yet few have called him on it. I am one of the founding members of the "I wish I had a buck for every time John was wrong, club" AKA 'Wrong John Millionaires Club'. I am always amazed he can command such outrageous fees for his inaccurate and divisive speaking engagements. Oh well, not-so-free speech at it's least efficient; a definitive case of entertainment over content (I enjoy reading him). My view of the future is in multiple operating systems on the desktop and dedicated full-time connected secure hardware platforms in the closet. Watch for low energy (less than 25 watts), no moving parts, full-time connected (Internet?), high storage capacity (terabyte), 'ClosetWare' platforms (without monitor, mouse or keyboard) in the near future. Linux is probably the absolute best OS for such an autonomous application. Ugh! Prognostication is a filthy habit, and totally addictive. Just one guy's humble opinion. Regards, Brian