OT Open source = Open mind?

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by LShapin » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:46:32



I have been contemplating open source versus Microsoft closed source
stuff and something about it nags at my vision of the future.  I
have read some of Isaac Asimov and a few other science fiction
books, always been interested in high technology, futuristic things.
Unfortunately, justified or not, the general public mistrusts rapid
advances in high tech.  Currently, many businesses in the industry
are upset with Microsoft trying to steal the show.  Most consumers
want to keep private things private, which I believe casts a shadow
over stuff like Hailstorm unless of course Microsoft can force the
issue.  If you accept some of those premises as fact, if you think
about the common conception of a pleasant future for mankind, you
might see how wrong Microsoft really is.  Ever wonder what an
operating system is analogous to?  How about brains?  Now, imagine
in the far future, when robots are common place.  Would you trust
robots, some of them capable of quickly killing a human being,
running around loose if you knew their operating system was Windows?
Wouldn't you rather live in a land of robots which would be like
this.  
1.  Never harm a human being.  
2.  Do as you command unless that violates rule one.  
3.  Their mental blueprint is known to everybody.  
I have a feeling that we are not going anywhere if Microsoft remains
at the helm.  
LShaping
 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by pip » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:31:05



> I have been contemplating open source versus Microsoft closed source
> stuff and something about it nags at my vision of the future.  I
> have read some of Isaac Asimov and a few other science fiction
> books, always been interested in high technology, futuristic things.
> Unfortunately, justified or not, the general public mistrusts rapid
> advances in high tech.  Currently, many businesses in the industry
> are upset with Microsoft trying to steal the show.  Most consumers
> want to keep private things private, which I believe casts a shadow
> over stuff like Hailstorm unless of course Microsoft can force the
> issue.  If you accept some of those premises as fact, if you think
> about the common conception of a pleasant future for mankind, you
> might see how wrong Microsoft really is.  Ever wonder what an
> operating system is analogous to?  How about brains?  Now, imagine
> in the far future, when robots are common place.  Would you trust
> robots, some of them capable of quickly killing a human being,
> running around loose if you knew their operating system was Windows?
> Wouldn't you rather live in a land of robots which would be like
> this.
> 1.  Never harm a human being.
> 2.  Do as you command unless that violates rule one.
> 3.  Their mental blueprint is known to everybody.
> I have a feeling that we are not going anywhere if Microsoft remains
> at the helm.
> LShaping

The thing about closed source is that people have to buy it. Like
freedom, "buy it" actually means that they have to want to purchase the
software from m$, but also that they "buy" or believe that it is
actually any good.

M$ only have control as long as people let them. That is why opensource
needs more than freedom to compete. The market will decide and
"advocates" would do well to stop *ing about market share/control
and understand the reasons behind that market share, *not all* are to do
with M$ being a monopoly and forcing people to use their products, or
other people's products that run on their OS. Some reasons are that M$
actually does a good job for Mr J. Average User. Of course "good job" is
a relative term.

I would hope that if robots were able to kill people they would either
have no OS, or they would have a very restrictive set of features. Most
likely, proven mathematically sound in advance. Of course, these days
standards are slipping so you never know where you may find Windows CE.
Either way, it would not bother me as you'd just see the light blue haze
of inactivity in the killer robot's eyes. Invalid page fault in
killPeople.dll.

 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by SteveCampbel » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:57:21


Quote:> 1.  Never harm a human being.
> 2.  Do as you command unless that violates rule one.
> 3.  Their mental blueprint is known to everybody.
> I have a feeling that we are not going anywhere if Microsoft remains
> at the helm.
> LShaping

surely rule 3 is that a robot should look after itself unless it violates
rule one or two.
MS embrace and extend Asimovs 3 laws......
1. No robot may cause harm to or through inaction allow to come to harm MS
profits.
2. A robot must do what it is told, except where this would achieve
something useful or vilolate rule 1
3. A robot must preserve itself by the regular use of full system reboots
and virus scans and defrags and and and and . except where doing so
prevents execution of rules 1 and 2.

4( the added MS rule). Bill is God, obey his will without question.

essentially they would have to hard code all the same shit their emplyees
are programmed with:)

--
registered Linux user #212154
Don't get mad, get Linux

Newbies concise guide to all this commandline business.
Essential reading!!! ( and short and quire funny too:) )
http://www.cmm.uklinux.net/steve/ntt.html

 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by Paolo Ciambott » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:59:56




> 1.  Never harm a human being.

They're a potential revenue source.

Quote:> 2.  Do as you command unless that violates rule one.

Or unless corrupted by one of ten-thousand MSFT viruses.

Quote:> 3.  Their mental blueprint is known to everybody.

The complete mental blueprint is known only to virus writers.  Even
Redmond hasn't got a clue.

Quote:> I have a feeling that we are not going anywhere if Microsoft remains at
> the helm.

Oh, we're going somewhere, alright.  It's just not someplace I want to
go.
 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by William Barwe » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:51:29




>1.  Never harm a human being.  
>2.  Do as you command unless that violates rule one.  
>3.  Their mental blueprint is known to everybody.  
>I have a feeling that we are not going anywhere if Microsoft remains
>at the helm.  
>LShaping

MS as the Sirius Robotics Company.

Share and enjoy!
Share and enjoy,
Your life with a
plastic girl or a boy...

 Hitchhiker's Guide to the Future.

 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by T. Max Devli » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:45:41


Said LShaping in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Aug 2001 06:46:32 GMT;

Quote:>I have been contemplating open source versus Microsoft closed source
>stuff and something about it nags at my vision of the future.  I
>have read some of Isaac Asimov and a few other science fiction
>books, always been interested in high technology, futuristic things.
>Unfortunately, justified or not, the general public mistrusts rapid
>advances in high tech.

Why?

Quote:>Currently, many businesses in the industry
>are upset with Microsoft trying to steal the show.

No, just at how they break the law.

Quote:>Most consumers
>want to keep private things private, which I believe casts a shadow
>over stuff like Hailstorm unless of course Microsoft can force the
>issue.

Well, in fact they can.  Are you familiar with the law they broke, and
why it was written?

Quote:>If you accept some of those premises as fact, if you think
>about the common conception of a pleasant future for mankind, you
>might see how wrong Microsoft really is.

It doesn't take such a metaphoric view, actually, but your point is
valid nevertheless.

Quote:>Ever wonder what an
>operating system is analogous to?  How about brains?

Well, see, the problem is that almost anything is 'analogous' to almost
anything.  You should't go basing your perceptions of things on analogy.
They're useful for description, but not explanation.

Quote:>Now, imagine
>in the far future, when robots are common place.

Used to be that far future was supposed to be five years ago, actually.
but I'm with you.

Quote:>Would you trust
>robots, some of them capable of quickly killing a human being,
>running around loose if you knew their operating system was Windows?
>Wouldn't you rather live in a land of robots which would be like
>this.  
>1.  Never harm a human being.  
>2.  Do as you command unless that violates rule one.  
>3.  Their mental blueprint is known to everybody.  
>I have a feeling that we are not going anywhere if Microsoft remains
>at the helm.  

Interesting analogy, anyway, I guess.  The 'three laws of robotics'
hypothesized by Asimov were actually:

1) Never harm a human.
2) Never harm yourself, unless it will prevent harm to a human.
3) Follow commands of all humans, unless they violate the first and
second law.

IIRC.

The 'open source' nature of positronic brains (used as a comparative
metaphor to 'electronic') is very questionable, actually.  All of
Asimov's stories had quiet and beneficent businesses, presumably
corporations but market-capitalized, which maintained the blueprints for
positronic brains as proprietary information, we must assume.

Obviously, Microsoft doesn't qualify as a 'quiet and beneficent
business'.  So your point is valid, but your analogy sucks.

--
T. Max Devlin
  *** The best way to convince another is
          to state your case moderately and
             accurately.   - Benjamin Franklin ***

 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by T. Max Devli » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:45:46


Said pip in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Aug 2001 09:31:05 +0100;
   [...]

Quote:>M$ only have control as long as people let them.

The same can be said of the U.S. Government.  Being victims of criminal
behavior is not a voluntary action.

Quote:>That is why opensource
>needs more than freedom to compete.

That's all it needs, though nothing else can compete with it, perhaps.

Quote:>The market will decide and
>"advocates" would do well to stop *ing about market share/control
>and understand the reasons behind that market share,

The reason is monopoly, the monopoly is the reason.  Get it?  Market
share only gives 'control' if you are breaking the law, believe it or
not.

Quote:>*not all* are to do
>with M$ being a monopoly and forcing people to use their products,

I'm afraid you're mistaken.  Not all benefits of Windows are Windows,
you know.  There isn't anything in that code that couldn't be
replicated, just shit that can't because it is too poorly designed to
guess and churned to often to examine.

Quote:>or
>other people's products that run on their OS. Some reasons are that M$
>actually does a good job for Mr J. Average User.

Boy, are you gullible.

Quote:>Of course "good job" is
>a relative term.

No, it is an outrageously stupid term, when applied to Microsoft.  No,
they did not _prevent_ ALL advances in computer technology from being
enjoyed by those who are locked in to their illegal monopoly.  That
doesn't count as 'benefit' or 'good job' in my book, however much your
may be an incredulous sap.

Quote:>I would hope that if robots were able to kill people they would either
>have no OS, or they would have a very restrictive set of features. Most
>likely, proven mathematically sound in advance.

Yea, that would be handy.  Guffaw.

Quote:>Of course, these days
>standards are slipping so you never know where you may find Windows CE.
>Either way, it would not bother me as you'd just see the light blue haze
>of inactivity in the killer robot's eyes. Invalid page fault in
>killPeople.dll.

LOL!  :-D

--
T. Max Devlin
  *** The best way to convince another is
          to state your case moderately and
             accurately.   - Benjamin Franklin ***

 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by pip » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:44:05



> >The market will decide and
> >"advocates" would do well to stop *ing about market share/control
> >and understand the reasons behind that market share,

> The reason is monopoly, the monopoly is the reason.  Get it?  Market
> share only gives 'control' if you are breaking the law, believe it or
> not.

No, I don't really get it. How did M$ break the law to out compete Apple
in the early days? There is a reason that it first got to it's position
of market power. Those may not be very compelling technical reasons, but
you must admit that people bought it hook line and sinker. It's not like
there weren't alternatives.

Quote:> >*not all* are to do
> >with M$ being a monopoly and forcing people to use their products,

> I'm afraid you're mistaken.  Not all benefits of Windows are Windows,
> you know.  There isn't anything in that code that couldn't be
> replicated, just shit that can't because it is too poorly designed to
> guess and churned to often to examine.

I know that there isn't anything that could not be replicated, but I
have a question why has it not been ? Of course this goes hand in hand
with the argument of closed source and market power, but initially it
was simply that people wanted Windows more than any other technology.

You are really unwilling to give M$ _any_ credit. IMHO they were a good
aggressive company when they started out. These days the position is
different, but as I said before, they did not get to a monopoly position
just by breaking the law and being lucky. They also worked hard for it.

Quote:> >or
> >other people's products that run on their OS. Some reasons are that M$
> >actually does a good job for Mr J. Average User.

> Boy, are you gullible.

Maybe. But I know that you can't compare Linux usability to Windows for
inexperienced users. The windows experience of getting new hardware to
work can sometimes be a little "hit and miss", but more often than not
it works and you don't have to mess around like I do in Linux. Now, I
*like* messing around and getting to know how things work, but some of
the people I teach computing to are almost phobic of the technical
details required to get say a cd burner to actually burn a cd under
Linux. It just does not happen.

Now, before you fly off the handle, I am not talking about desktop GUI
usability, because I think that they are getting more on par now, no,
I'm talking about the simple fact that *generally* it is far easier to
get hardware working under Windows than it is under Linux, and a lot of
Mr J. Average User's appreciate that they can pop into a computer store
and pick up a web-cam without worrying too much if it will work - it
mostly just does.

Of course you can relate a lot of these problems now straight back the
monopoly control that M$ has, but the important point I was trying to
make is that initially this was not the case.

 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by LShapin » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:37:31




>><snip>
>No, I don't really get it. How did M$ break the law to out compete Apple
>in the early days?

IBM had something to do with that.  So did Apple.  

Quote:>> I'm <snip>
>I know that there isn't anything that could not be replicated, but I
>have a question why has it not been? Of course this goes hand in hand
>with the argument of closed source and market power, but initially it
>was simply that people wanted Windows more than any other technology.
>You are really unwilling to give M$ _any_ credit.

That is correct.  

Quote:>IMHO they were a good
>aggressive company when they started out. These days the position is
>different, but as I said before, they did not get to a monopoly position
>just by breaking the law and being lucky. They also worked hard for it.

Not knowing much about the history, I think the consensus is that
Microsoft's lucky break was given to them by IBM (after that, a
positive feedback loop and network effects took over).  There is a
short story about that on the web someplace, an interview with the
folks involved (including Bill Gates).  Apparently, Microsoft took
the opportunity and ran with it.  

Quote:>> Boy, are you <snip>
><snip>
>Now, before you fly off the handle,

Hehe, good luck.  

Quote:>I am not talking about desktop GUI
>usability, because I think that they are getting more on par now, no,
>I'm talking about the simple fact that generally it is far easier to
>get hardware working under Windows than it is under Linux,

I intend to try beginning next Monday.  I can feel the anxiety
already.  

Quote:>and a lot of Mr J. Average User's appreciate that they can pop into a
>computer store and pick up a web-cam without worrying too much if
>it will work - it mostly just does.

I am an expert user and I too appreciate that.  Nice to know that
the billions Microsoft is sucking out of the high technology
industry are producing something.  

Quote:>Of course you can relate a lot of these problems now straight back the
>monopoly control that M$ has, but the important point I was trying to
>make is that initially this was not the case.

Said Jim Barksdale (the most outstanding IMO, seldom talked about
individual involved in the Microsoft antitrust case).  
Quote:>Practices that served them well when they were young and
>growing and aggressive are illegal once you become a monopoly.  

And then says the not quite grown-up Steve Ballmer.  
Quote:>I don't know what a monopoly is until somebody tells me, ...

That was said after the Appeals told him.  
LShaping

--
"No court will stop us from innovating"
(Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft)

 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by Donal K. Fellow » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:18:47



> The 'three laws of robotics' hypothesized by Asimov were actually:

> 1) Never harm a human.
> 2) Never harm yourself, unless it will prevent harm to a human.
> 3) Follow commands of all humans, unless they violate the first and
> second law.

> IIRC.

You forgot the inaction clauses.  And the zeroth law (if you permit it
in the first place.)

Donal.
--

-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
   be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our

 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by T. Max Devli » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 03:33:15


Said pip in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:44:05 +0100;


>> >The market will decide and
>> >"advocates" would do well to stop *ing about market share/control
>> >and understand the reasons behind that market share,

>> The reason is monopoly, the monopoly is the reason.  Get it?  Market
>> share only gives 'control' if you are breaking the law, believe it or
>> not.

>No, I don't really get it. How did M$ break the law to out compete Apple
>in the early days?

You're assuming your conclusion, with this 'to out compete Apple'
bullshit.  Microsoft has never competed with Apple, for instance.

Quote:>There is a reason that it first got to it's position
>of market power.

Yes, a blanket licensing agreement with IBM.

Quote:>Those may not be very compelling technical reasons, but
>you must admit that people bought it hook line and sinker. It's not like
>there weren't alternatives.

There weren't.  The PC (a new product in a new market) had three options
on the earliest prices sheets.  All of them unknown, untried, and
untested by anyone buying a PC, except in very rare cases (remember; new
product, new market).  Because MS was not concerned about making profit
at competitive rates, but simply wanted to build a 'singularity' (Gates'
word for monopoly, it seems) they ensured (just as they did later with
per-processor licensing when other OEMs cloned the PC) that there were
two expensive choices, and DOS.

So, yea, in theory, there were alternatives.  But, just as today,
_twenty years later_, they were made to appear unattractive by
Microsoft's failure to act in the way a profit-seeking business is
legally and economically caused to act.

   [...]

Quote:>I know that there isn't anything that could not be replicated, but I
>have a question why has it not been ?

Churn, baby, churn.

Quote:>Of course this goes hand in hand
>with the argument of closed source and market power, but initially it
>was simply that people wanted Windows more than any other technology.

Windows?  Ha.  People wanted anything better than DOS.  So MS figured
out how to give them that, or make it look like they did, anyway, while
still maintaining the DOS monopoly.  DesqView and OS/2 were the superior
alternatives, cut off from the market by MS's criminal 'leveraging' of
their monopoly power.

Quote:>You are really unwilling to give M$ _any_ credit.

Not at all.  Simply unable.

Quote:>IMHO they were a good
>aggressive company when they started out.

Your opinion may be both honest and humble, but it is neither
well-informed or correct.

Quote:>These days the position is
>different, but as I said before, they did not get to a monopoly position
>just by breaking the law and being lucky. They also worked hard for it.

I don't think 'working hard at breaking the law' and 'getting lucky' are
all that different.  Depends on whether you call getting away with it
for twenty years and making billions through illegal activity 'being
lucky', once you're caught and convicted, I guess.  I sure think they
got lucky, but I know for a fact that they were breaking the law, and,
yes, that's all it took.  Lord knows it wasn't anything about DOS that
made it 'popular'.  Just it's "below competitive levels" price, which
were considered just 'cheap' because the typical market consumer did not
have the first clue what or why a competitive price for such a thing
was.  Had MS not then used their installed base anti-competitively, that
itself might not even have been illegal.  

Quote:>> >or
>> >other people's products that run on their OS. Some reasons are that M$
>> >actually does a good job for Mr J. Average User.

>> Boy, are you gullible.

>Maybe. But I know that you can't compare Linux usability to Windows for
>inexperienced users.

Hell yes, you can, I can, and I do.  I've been teaching both experienced
and inexperienced users on dozens of different OSes for more than a
decade.  Both are inexplicable to a new user; Linux usability goes up
from there, Windows at best remains the same, and often becomes less
usable the more experience you have, as the failures in their interface
metaphors pile up and show the tremendous inconsistency and rather
pitiful design of Windows and all of its components.

Quote:>The windows experience of getting new hardware to
>work can sometimes be a little "hit and miss", but more often than not
>it works and you don't have to mess around like I do in Linux.

This is _after_ TWENTY YEARS of monopolization, Pip.  Grow a brain, for
heaven's sake.

Quote:>Now, I
>*like* messing around and getting to know how things work, but some of
>the people I teach computing to are almost phobic of the technical
>details required to get say a cd burner to actually burn a cd under
>Linux. It just does not happen.

Sounds more like you're an incompetent teacher.

Quote:>Now, before you fly off the handle, I am not talking about desktop GUI
>usability, because I think that they are getting more on par now, no,
>I'm talking about the simple fact that *generally* it is far easier to
>get hardware working under Windows than it is under Linux,

Well, _generally_ Microsoft spends millions of dollars to force hardware
vendors to lock themselves in to Windows, and often contractually
prevents them from supporting Linux.  Get a clue.

Quote:>and a lot of
>Mr J. Average User's appreciate that they can pop into a computer store
>and pick up a web-cam without worrying too much if it will work - it
>mostly just does.

Sure; everybody loves being at the mercy of a monopoly, as long as it
isn't their air supply being cut off, or at least as long as they don't
notice it until they're unconscious already, and just think that buzzing
in their ears is all the great new products wizzing onto the shelves...

Quote:>Of course you can relate a lot of these problems now straight back the
>monopoly control that M$ has, but the important point I was trying to
>make is that initially this was not the case.

But you aren't talking about initially, are you?  They didn't have
web-cams in 1981, when MS originally established their monopoly, through
purposeful (and thus criminal) intent.

--
T. Max Devlin
  *** The best way to convince another is
          to state your case moderately and
             accurately.   - Benjamin Franklin ***

 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by pip » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 04:04:28



> Churn, baby, churn.
> Your opinion may be both honest and humble, but it is neither
> well-informed or correct.
> Boy, are you gullible.
> Grow a brain, for heaven's sake.
> Sounds more like you're an incompetent teacher.
> Get a clue.

Thanks, ok max you've won. I'll grow a brain and get a clue.
 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by Joe Use » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:52:26




> > >The market will decide and
> > >"advocates" would do well to stop *ing about market share/control
> > >and understand the reasons behind that market share,

> > The reason is monopoly, the monopoly is the reason.  Get it?  Market
> > share only gives 'control' if you are breaking the law, believe it or
> > not.

> No, I don't really get it.

It means that Microsoft is only able to control the market because they
genuinely have a monopoly on it.  If they merely have greater market share
than any of their competitors without having a monopoly, then they *still*
must compete, they *still* must cater to consumers

Quote:> How did M$ break the law to out compete Apple
> in the early days?

I don't know if they broke the law, but they didn't out compete Apple.
Microsoft operating systems ran on IBM computers.  Apple operating systems
ran on what was perceived to be toy computers/game machines.  MS won because
of everyone's opinion of IBM.

Quote:>There is a reason that it first got to it's position
> of market power. Those may not be very compelling technical reasons, but
> you must admit that people bought it hook line and sinker. It's not like
> there weren't alternatives.

There weren't any really viable alternatives on IBM machines.  Well, there
was one, and it was 100% compatible with MSDOS while being technically
superior to MSDOS.  But Microsoft killed that company, and they did break
the law to do that.

Quote:> > >*not all* are to do
> > >with M$ being a monopoly and forcing people to use their products,

> > I'm afraid you're mistaken.  Not all benefits of Windows are Windows,
> > you know.  There isn't anything in that code that couldn't be
> > replicated, just shit that can't because it is too poorly designed to
> > guess and churned to often to examine.

> I know that there isn't anything that could not be replicated, but I
> have a question why has it not been ? Of course this goes hand in hand
> with the argument of closed source and market power, but initially it
> was simply that people wanted Windows more than any other technology.

No, Microsoft shoved Windows down everyone's throats by strongarming
computer makers.  This was such a successful strategy that they still do it
to this day.

Quote:> You are really unwilling to give M$ _any_ credit. IMHO they were a good
> aggressive company when they started out.

Maybe, but Microsoft was founded on an all but plagiarized version of BASIC.
This set the tone for the company, and they've never really changed their
spots.

Quote:> > >or
> > >other people's products that run on their OS. Some reasons are that M$
> > >actually does a good job for Mr J. Average User.

> > Boy, are you gullible.

> Maybe. But I know that you can't compare Linux usability to Windows for
> inexperienced users. The windows experience of getting new hardware to
> work can sometimes be a little "hit and miss", but more often than not
> it works and you don't have to mess around like I do in Linux.

I don't doubt people's stories that they've had hardware problems with
Linux, but so far I haven't.  I installed Win98 from scratch and Linux from
scratch within a week of each other.  Windows didn't support anything out of
the box except the mouse, keyboard, and the VGA capabilities of the monitor.
It didn't detect anything at all.  It was a hideous experience trying to
find everything I needed.  Linux detected, and supported, everything I have
on my system.  This happened with Slackware The Latest, RH 7.1, and Mandrake
8.

Quote:> Now, I
> *like* messing around and getting to know how things work, but some of
> the people I teach computing to are almost phobic of the technical
> details required to get say a cd burner to actually burn a cd under
> Linux. It just does not happen.

Again, that is contrary to my experience.  I've seen so many Linux users
boast about how Linux never ruins CDs that I finally decided to put it to
the test.  I did download a GUI frontend for the cdrecord program (from
DaveCentral, I think), but only because I didn't feel like figuring out how
to use it from the cli.  Anyway, I was using Slackware at the time and I had
just grabbed the RH 7.1 iso images, so I decided to try it on that.  I
wanted to REALLY put it to the test, so I loaded up all kinds of stuff
before I started burning.  Started a long compile, a long download, got a
video game going, and then started the burn.  During the burn, I restarted
the compile whenever I noticed it had finished, and did the same with the
download, all while playing a graphic intensive game.  Each cd came out
without a hitch.

Under Windows, I'm afraid to touch the mouse during a burn.  I've ruined
more discs than I've written under Windows.  I've burned 9 or 10 cds under
Linux flawlessly.

I've seen other Linux advocates relate similar experiences, and now I know
they're telling the simple truth.

Maybe someone on here can give a technical explanation for this.  Why does
Win98 toast CDs, and on the same hardware, Linux performs without a hitch?

This is a serious question.  I'd really like to know the actual reasons.

--
Joe User

 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by pip » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:45:39



> I don't know if they broke the law, but they didn't out compete Apple.
> Microsoft operating systems ran on IBM computers.  Apple operating systems
> ran on what was perceived to be toy computers/game machines.  MS won because
> of everyone's opinion of IBM.

This is true in part. But M$ also "won" because of great business
decisions. M$ had to win the confidence of IBM - the legend at the time
and they did.

Quote:> There weren't any really viable alternatives on IBM machines.  Well, there
> was one, and it was 100% compatible with MSDOS while being technically
> superior to MSDOS.  But Microsoft killed that company, and they did break
> the law to do that.

But there were more than IBM machines in the market. IBM won for many
reasons, mainly because they were IBM and they had lots of useful
software to make the pretty beige box actually do something useful.

Quote:> No, Microsoft shoved Windows down everyone's throats by strongarming
> computer makers.  This was such a successful strategy that they still do it
> to this day.

Yes they did.

Quote:> Maybe, but Microsoft was founded on an all but plagiarized version of BASIC.
> This set the tone for the company, and they've never really changed their
> spots.

True. But for some silly company that just copies stuff - ain't it done
well for it's self ?

It also managed to beat Lotus 123 with their Excel and knock Wordperfect
off it's perch.

Quote:> I don't doubt people's stories that they've had hardware problems with
> Linux, but so far I haven't.  I installed Win98 from scratch and Linux from
> scratch within a week of each other.  Windows didn't support anything out of
> the box except the mouse, keyboard, and the VGA capabilities of the monitor.
> It didn't detect anything at all.  It was a hideous experience trying to
> find everything I needed.  Linux detected, and supported, everything I have
> on my system.  This happened with Slackware The Latest, RH 7.1, and Mandrake
> 8.

True, but a few observations.

1) Linux HAS to support everything "out of the box"
2) There are always windows drivers available
3) Most systems are pre-installed

The types of things new users are concerned with is adding additional
items such as scanners, web cam's, printers etc. etc. For this, it is
very important that the way you get the device to work be as simple as
possible.

Quote:> Again, that is contrary to my experience.  I've seen so many Linux users
> boast about how Linux never ruins CDs that I finally decided to put it to
> the test.  I did download a GUI frontend for the cdrecord program (from
> DaveCentral, I think), but only because I didn't feel like figuring out how
> to use it from the cli.  Anyway, I was using Slackware at the time and I had
> just grabbed the RH 7.1 iso images, so I decided to try it on that.  I
> wanted to REALLY put it to the test, so I loaded up all kinds of stuff
> before I started burning.  Started a long compile, a long download, got a
> video game going, and then started the burn.  During the burn, I restarted
> the compile whenever I noticed it had finished, and did the same with the
> download, all while playing a graphic intensive game.  Each cd came out
> without a hitch.

> Under Windows, I'm afraid to touch the mouse during a burn.  I've ruined
> more discs than I've written under Windows.  I've burned 9 or 10 cds under
> Linux flawlessly.

You missed the re-compiling with SCSI emulation part (and the change of
your mount point).

CD burning may well work better under Linux. I've not noticed any
difference, but then I have not tried to break the system.

In any case, the point is that normally the software needed comes on the
cd burner driver CD. This may be a small point, but for a novice user it
is much easier to install from a cd rather than find a suitable
front-end to cdrecord. In this case, the pressure should be on the
vendor to provide choice. It still impacts on ease of use, who ever
fault it is. I don't care, but the point is that a novice does. This is
a good example of a case where Linux seems clearly technically superior,
but this won't help the novice user (assuming that the system didn't
come with this all pre-installed - which would be best).

Quote:> Maybe someone on here can give a technical explanation for this.  Why does
> Win98 toast CDs, and on the same hardware, Linux performs without a hitch?

Who knows ? Rubbish CD burning software ?

Quote:> This is a serious question.  I'd really like to know the actual reasons.

Maybe better task scheduling? Maybe better IO read ahead ? Maybe better
caching?
 
 
 

OT Open source = Open mind?

Post by SteveCampbel » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:39:06


And yeah Donal K. Fellows Did speak unto the masses thusly:


>> The 'three laws of robotics' hypothesized by Asimov were actually:

>> 1) Never harm a human.
>> 2) Never harm yourself, unless it will prevent harm to a human.
>> 3) Follow commands of all humans, unless they violate the first and
>> second law.

>> IIRC.

> You forgot the inaction clauses.  And the zeroth law (if you permit it
> in the first place.)

> Donal.

he also got 2 and 3 the wron way round did he not?

--
registered Linux user #212154
Don't get mad, get Linux

Newbies concise guide to all this commandline business.
Essential reading!!! ( and short and quire funny too:) )
http://www.cmm.uklinux.net/steve/ntt.html