Modules that cannot be replaced or removed

Post #28,996 by imric 2/19/02 7:51:44 PM Reply	Modules that cannot be replaced or removed because they are spread out through the OS? Those are modules? I consider IE modular because I can reuse portions of its functionality in many different ways. The whole thing is a collection of separate components that can be reused independently - the HTML engine, the GUI widget, etc. Ah - so DOS is modular. The whole thing is a collection of separate components that can be reused independently, after all - in fact, with your definition, modularity is achieved by any product that has more than one function, automatically! Can you see that a 'module' that cannot be replaced is not mudular? That what you call a module is really an API? After all, what MS got slapped for originally was denying OEMs (the real Windows customers, after all - they are the ones paying for Windows) the ability to install Netscape on machines with Windows installations that they had PAID FOR, not for providing an API for developers. They denied OEMs a signifigant way to differentiate thier products, specifically for the purpose of 'cutting off Netscape's air-supply'. This was at a time when even though MS was giving thier product away, they could not compete with Netscape, who was selling thiers. The only way to grab marketshare from Netscape was to force installation of thier own product, and prevent OEMs from installing competing products. That doesn't do Netscape much good however, since Windows' standard file manager (EXPLORER.EXE) also exposes the Web browsing capability. If IE was a module, it could be replaced by another. What is the purpose of that 'stub', pray? Can it be replaced by, say, Netscape? No - Microsoft will not permit OEMs to do so, even though it is those same OEMs that would be obligated to support it. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #29,009 by Squidley 2/19/02 11:20:13 PM Reply	Re: Modules that cannot be replaced or removed because they are spread out through the OS? Those are modules? I'd say these particular ones can't be removed because too many applications that are vital parts of the product depend on them. Ah - so DOS is modular. The whole thing is a collection of separate components that can be reused independently, after all - in fact, with your definition, modularity is achieved by any product that has more than one function, automatically! I wouldn't say modularity is a systemwide yes-or-no kind of thing. Most Unix-like systems are very modular while many of their individual components are not. Modular design can be applied at any level, and so can non-modular design. Wouldn't you agree? As for DOS, my opinion is as follows. DOS systems are extremely primitive, but certainly show crude signs of modular design. The core of the system consists of a very small number of modules, each of which may be totally monolithic for all we know, but the system as a whole certainly isn't a monolith. The command processor, the command-line utilities, and the device drivers are all separate from the "kernel". Can you see that a 'module' that cannot be replaced is not mudular? What makes you think it can't be replaced? Microsoft's argument isn't that it can't be replaced, is it? Isn't it that it can't be replaced without damaging the product? Or are you arguing that modules that are heavily reused are not modules? If IE was a module, it could be replaced by another. Which IE are you talking about here\ufffd- IE the collection of reusable components, or IE the executable program (IEXPLORE.EXE)? Either way, it certainly can be replaced. None of these things are tied into the kernel. But you can't just remove it without damaging the product. What is the purpose of that 'stub', pray? It's just a thin executable container for the IE ActiveX control, which is reusable and resides in a DLL.
Post #29,033 by imric 2/20/02 6:06:09 AM Reply	No. What makes you think it can't be replaced? Microsoft's argument isn't that it can't be replaced, is it? Isn't it that it can't be replaced without damaging the product? Or are you arguing that modules that are heavily reused are not modules? It can't be replaced without damaging the product - but it's modular, huh? As I said before, what YOU describe is an API, not modularity. "it can't be replaced without damaging the product" argues against "it's" modularity, BTW. What is the purpose of that 'stub', pray? It's just a thin executable container for the IE ActiveX control, which is reusable and resides in a DLL. sigh You miss the point. MS provided an explicit browser through that 'stub'. They prevented thier customers (OEMS) from replacing it (that explicit browser), or even installing any competing product - thus using thier OS monopoly to destroy, then capture the (then thriving) market in internet browsers - and damaging OEMs ability to differentiate/add value to thier own products. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #29,053 by Squidley 2/20/02 11:25:42 AM Reply	APIs & Modularity It can't be replaced without damaging the product - but it's modular, huh? Sorry, I misspoke, but you seemed to get my point anyway; I meant to say it can't be removed without damaging the product. And no, I don't see why something that's vital to the product it's part of cannot possibly be modular. I see no connection there whatsoever. "it can't be replaced without damaging the product" argues against "it's" modularity, BTW. Again, I'm assuming we both meant "removed" when we said "replaced". If that assumption is correct, then I totally disagree with your claim here. Removing, say, the X Server from a Mandrake package does a great deal of damage to the Mandrake product. But what does that say about whether the X Server itself is modular? Absolutely nothing, as far as I can tell. They prevented thier customers (OEMS) from replacing it (that explicit browser), or even installing any competing product - thus using thier OS monopoly to destroy, then capture the (then thriving) market in internet browsers - and damaging OEMs ability to differentiate/add value to thier own products. Two things. First, I totally agree that Microsoft was wrong to prevent OEMs from preinstalling Navigator (although somehow that pile of crap managed to find its way onto the last three PCs I bought). Second, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft insisting that OEMs not remove IEXPLORE.EXE, especially considering that it would have done no good since the shell (EXPLORER.EXE) is equally adept at Web browsing.
Post #29,068 by drewk 2/20/02 12:02:56 PM Reply	Re: APIs & Modularity Again, I'm assuming we both meant "removed" when we said "replaced". No, I believe he meant "replaced." The two are different. Here, I'll show you how. Removing, say, the X Server from a Mandrake package does a great deal of damage to the Mandrake product. But the X Server can be completely replaced by another product that does the same thing. See [link\|http://www.tridiavnc.com/list-mailist/2001-01/0611.html\|here] for an example of how trivially this can be done. Second, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft insisting that OEMs not remove IEXPLORE.EXE, especially considering that it would have done no good since the shell (EXPLORER.EXE) is equally adept at Web browsing. Really? So why is IEXPLORE.EXE included at all? We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #29,082 by Squidley 2/20/02 1:33:12 PM Reply	Re: APIs & Modularity No, I believe he meant "replaced." In that case, I would ask him why he thinks IE couldn't be replaced. I believe Microsoft's objection is to having IE removed. But the X Server can be completely replaced by another product that does the same thing. See here for an example of how trivially this can be done. What makes you think IE couldn't be replaced if a 100% workalike was available? It's not like it's tied into the kernel or anything. Really? So why is IEXPLORE.EXE included at all? My guess is that it's for backward compatibility. Third party software may assume it's there and try to launch it. It's kind of like cc and gcc. If you use Linux, your compiler is probably gcc, but you have to keep the cc stub around for backward compatibility.
Post #29,087 by Andrew Grygus 2/20/02 1:55:47 PM Reply	This is really funny. Replace: Step1: remove existing item. Step2: insert replacement item. Looks to me like an objection to "remove" also counts as an objection to "replace". What makes you think IE couldn't be replaced if a 100% workalike was available? It's not like it's tied into the kernel or anything. Where does Microsoft's "kernel" stop and something else begin? Microsoft says the whole thing is inextricable, and will negatively impact performance, so it must effectively be "part of the kernel" in their definition. What they're saying is that you'd have to pick apart the whole system to insert even a 100% workalike. Probably not true, but when has Microsoft ever told the truth about anything? It's all just obfuscation and "comingling". [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,177 by Squidley 2/21/02 9:18:25 AM Reply	Re: This is really funny. Looks to me like an objection to "remove" also counts as an objection to "replace". I thought we were talking about technical barriers rather than contractual ones. Technically, IE is both removeable and replaceable. But simply removing it would cause lots of important stuff in the product to stop functioning, and expecting Microsoft to let third parties replace it is also totally absurd. On the other hand, I think Microsoft should allow OEMs to add any third-party products they want, at least as long as those products are compliant with some minimum standards. Do you disagree? Where does Microsoft's "kernel" stop and something else begin? Are you that unfamiliar with Windows architecture? I think you'd find it very similar to that of [insert your favorite modern general-purpose OS]. Microsoft says the whole thing is inextricable, and will negatively impact performance, so it must effectively be "part of the kernel" in their definition. I disagree with your interpretation of Microsoft's argument. If you remove IE, you don't break the kernel; you break things like the desktop, the help system, the administration console, etc. Doesn't that sound like a negative impact on performance? Sure, some things will continue to work, but the product as a whole is greatly damaged. The standard command processor in a typical Linux package certainly isn't part of the kernel, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you what would happen to the product if you simply removed that command processor without rewriting the zillion things that depend on it.
Post #29,209 by warmachine 2/21/02 10:54:20 AM Reply	MS should control PC configuration? ...expecting Microsoft to let third parties replace it[IE component in Windows] is also totally absurd. Why? You state that IE is removable and replaceable and that OEMs should be allowed to add third party products, provided they comply with a minimum standard. In the case of an IE replacement, that standard would be the same component interface that the IE and shell development teams have declared to each other. If an IE replacement correctly complied with that, there would be no problem. If an OEM should be allowed to add value with third party products, what's wrong with adding value by replacing replacable components. If a replacement didn't work, it wouldn't be Microsoft's problem; the OEM is expected to support their PCs. Or is your argument that MS should be allowed to control the configuration provided to end-users? If so, that stifles innovation or market adaption by the OEMs themselves. For example, suppose there's a locked-down browser that blocks children from seeing banned sites. An OEM could market a child-locked PC to concerned parents, if they were allowed to replace IE. Or some software company might develop a browser that supports micro-payments of pay-per-view content and sell an integrated version to OEMs. A PC is a generic, adaptable machine and is in a competitive market. Choice from a variety of packages would be a good thing. Why should MS be allowed to control a product that they don't supply? Microsoft Outlook - one, big, macro virus portal.
Post #29,231 by Squidley 2/21/02 12:06:02 PM Reply	Re: MS should control PC configuration? If an OEM should be allowed to add value with third party products, what's wrong with adding value by replacing replacable components. The reasons are practical. IE is a nontrivial component. Many of the interfaces it exposes are nontrivial. There's a ton of other nontrivial stuff in Windows that reuses various IE components. Microsoft has poured tons of time and money into testing all that stuff with IE. And here's the key point. Microsoft also knows that no two independent implementations of a nontrivial software specification will ever be 100% compatible. If you don't believe that last part, you've probably never done hard time trying to get a nontrivial Java product to work correctly under several different vendors' JVMs, or taken a good long look at what GNU autoconf does. The bottom line is that if nobody ever tested, say, the Windows file manager on top of someone else's HTML component, there's a good chance it won't work correctly in that configuration. There's a chance it will, of course, but it's a risk that neither Microsoft nor any other software developer in the same situation has any reason to take. And I believe it is unfair and unreasonable to require them to take it. Your thoughts? If a replacement didn't work, it wouldn't be Microsoft's problem; the OEM is expected to support their PCs. It's still too risky for Microsoft. Think about it. If a ton of basic Windows stuff doesn't work\ufffd- we're talking about the desktop, the file manager, the administration console, the help system (!), etc.\ufffd- who do you think the user will blame? Whose brand do you think the user will lose confidence in? I realize that many people here will scoff at the notion of confidence in the Microsoft brand, but let's try to be serious here. Do you think that attitude applies to the majority of Microsoft's user base? Heck, forget Microsoft and look around. How many automobile manufacturers give dealers the freedom to modify cars any which way? Don't you think there are valid reasons for that? Even if a vendor has had problems with brand confidence in the past, do you think they should be required, for any reason, to abandon practices designed to protect it? Or is your argument that MS should be allowed to control the configuration provided to end-users? No, that's not my argument at all.
Post #29,237 by boxley 2/21/02 12:22:13 PM Reply	you are absolutely right Since Microsoft demanded all 3rd party software to have hooks directly into IE or lose MS branding they have gobbled the browser market. Why does quicken circa 1997 REQUIRE IE to be installed for an ACCOUNTING package? Becuase MS forced them to require it under their licensing scheme. thanx, bill "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #29,242 by Brandioch 2/21/02 12:33:22 PM Reply	I haven't met one that wouldn't. How many automobile manufacturers give dealers the freedom to modify cars any which way? Every single one of them, in my experience. Sure, they might charge a lot more if I want something weird. But they'll put whatever wheels I want on it. They'll put whatever tires I want on it. They'll have it where ever I want to pick it up at. You want different seats? No problem. Tinted windowss? Can do. A chain-link steering wheel and dingle balls? It will take a week extra and they'll charge you for installation. They are only TOO willing to sell you a car and charge you for their mechanic's time. Don't you think there are valid reasons for that? Yep. 'Cause there's competition for your money. If they don't do it, some one else will. Even if a vendor has had problems with brand confidence in the past, do you think they should be required, for any reason, to abandon practices designed to protect it? Nope. Give the customer what the customer wants. But, then again, if the car spontaniously bursts into flame, you can sue the manufacturer. Who do you complain to when your computer crashes?
Post #29,266 by warmachine 2/21/02 1:55:51 PM Reply	A natural monopoly would be leverage into a free market. And I believe it is unfair and unreasonable to require them[MS and third parties] to take it[risk of browser-OS incompatibility]. Your thoughts? If Microsoft sold Windows as a complete, non-extensible application suite, avoidance of risk would make sense. But Microsoft sell an operating system which is a platform for separate applications. MS own a natural monopoly in the PC desktop operating system but don't own the PC application market. If MS is not required to publish application interfaces beyond their application divisions, this allows them to use their monopoly as leverage into an application market. This is leverage no third party can hope to counter; a free market is no longer free. Unless we want to turn the web browser market into a monopoly, MS has to live with incompatibility risk. The third-party developers take most of the risk anyway. If MS weren't being anti-competitive, they'd publish the browser interface and expect third parties to adhere to that. If a program doesn't work and it isn't a problem with the OS, then the third party has to fix it. If a ton of basic Windows stuff doesn't work\ufffd- ... - who do you think the user will blame? Whose brand do you think the user will lose confidence in? So, Microsoft should be allowed to dictate OEM configuration because they might mess it up, even though the OEM has to support it? Because a PC uses their operating system, their brand extends to all hardware and software that use it? The OEM is not a brand in itself? If, for some reason, MS does not bounce a support call to the OEM, they can demonstrate to the end user that the configuration isn't theirs, get IE installed and get it working. The end user would then understand whose software was at fault and reassign the blame. In short, Microsoft should maintain the proverbial Chinese Wall between the OS and other divisions for competitive practices. Microsoft Outlook - one, big, macro virus portal.
Post #29,275 by bepatient 2/21/02 2:57:47 PM Reply	How the monopoly works. IE integration. IE is >now< a "non-trivial" component of the operating system. Interesting..that an application such as web browsing be so tied to an OS...Win95 didn't even install a browser initially...is 98 or ME that far removed from those earlier versions? Really? So...how do you convince someone that your actions are "in the consumers best interest" when your intention is to drive your competition into extinction. Take a trivial component...a web browser...and weave it so deeply into your product that it becomes "non-trivial". Then...you can't remove it...things will break...you can't modify it...things will break. Honest, your Honor...it >has< to be there to insure a "uniform customer experience". Please. Now you seem to be supporting further extension of that monopoly. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #29,287 by imric 2/21/02 5:11:34 PM 2/21/02 5:30:40 PM Reply	Homogenity over all. The reasons are practical. IE is a nontrivial component So - only trivial 'components' are permissible to replace. And - who judges? Microsoft's legal and marketing departments, no? After all, MS declared that IE was integrated before MS developers smeared it across so many .dlls and forced explorer to depend on it. you've probably never done hard time trying to get a nontrivial Java product to work correctly under several different vendors' JVMs I've run ide's across different jvms (and platforms) with little or no problems - does the definition of 'nontrivial' mean that it didn't work when you tried it? risk that neither Microsoft nor any other software developer in the same situation has any reason to take. And I believe it is unfair and unreasonable to require them to take it. Your thoughts? Require? Funny, nobody asked MS to replace it's own product with competing ones (unless as a punishment for breaking the law as egregiously as they have been shown to). This is not the same thing as allowing OEM's to customize products that they pay for. More - who do you think the user will blame? Whose brand do you think the user will lose confidence in? Hmmm. Let's see. Let's say a Compaq product has a problem, and user A can't run his programs. He calls Compaq for support, and still can't get his stuff to run. Then he calls MS for support, and MS has him reload Windows (not far-fetched, it's a common enough response from MS). Suddenly, his 'pure' MS system runs! In this scenario, we are to believe that User A will blame Microsft, not Compaq? Let's try this - neither MS support OR Compaq can get things to run... The user will of course ignore the brand name on the desktop in front of him as the cause, as well, right? Of course they wouldn't curse 'that Compaq piece of sht'. Now, let's look at Compaq support fixing the problem. Yeah, they might blame Windows. Do you think they won't blame Windows now? OK - now the case that a value-add from Compaq increases performance or makes the interface more appealing - this is bad for MS how? Only bad if they DON'T actually have the best product, and can't compete on quality with the OEM's value-add. Bottom line: Right now, the OEMs bear the responsibility for support, anyway. Saying that allowing OEMs to customize systems in any way that they want is 'bad' is denying that OEM value-adds bear importance to OEM sales. Even if the OEMs botched the job, that would simply make a 'pure' Microsoft system a selling point. How many automobile manufacturers give dealers the freedom to modify cars any which way? Don't you think there are valid reasons for that? If I buy a car and modify it extensively, then sell it - no problem. It's been modified, the 'stock' auto mfg. is no longer required to 'support' it (though I'm required to, and may offer an extended service plan if I wish) - and has nothing more to do with it. If I do this with 50, a hundred, a thousand a day, it doesn't matter. The auto manufacturers can't stop me. If I were to do this with Microsoft products, I'd be put out of business. Your arguments seem to be a tired rehash of the MS-apologian practice of blaming 'third party' software for every quirk and instability that end-users experience (often without investigating the problem thoroughly). Imric's Tips for Living* Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win. Edited by imric Feb. 21, 2002, 05:30:40 PM EST Expand All History
Post #30,067 by Steven A S 2/27/02 6:49:22 PM Reply	Re: This is really funny. The standard command processor in a typical Linux package certainly isn't part of the kernel, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you what would happen to the product if you simply removed that command processor without rewriting the zillion things that depend on it. First off, which command processor are you talking about? BASH? CShell? ZShell? etc? that's actually the perfect example of modularity. you can easily swap in whichever shell you prefer. Second you HAVE to have a command processor, otherwise you can't execute commands! On the other hand, you can execute commands without an HTML parser. We've done it for many years before MS decided it was simply too important to leave as meerly an add-on program. ~~~)-Steven---- "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..." General George S. Patton
Post #30,097 by wharris2 2/27/02 10:52:09 PM Reply	Have to have a command processor? Second you HAVE to have a command processor, otherwise you can't execute commands! Are you calling the command prompt of Winblows a command processor? Or are you calling the "click on stuff" style of Mac and Windows a command processor? I wouldn't dignify either with such a label. They are interfaces to programs, and I still gag on the time I first tried to write a Windows program, but it's a stretch to call the Windows or Mac API a command processor. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #30,130 by Steven A S 2/28/02 6:52:39 AM Reply	On Win9X it was the DOS COMMAND.COM even if MS said that DOS no longer existed. And no, I didn't say it had to be a good command processor, just that it exist. ~~~)-Steven---- "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..." General George S. Patton
Post #30,121 by pwhysall 2/28/02 3:29:58 AM Reply	Re: This is really funny. Are you that unfamiliar with Windows architecture? I think you'd find it very similar to that of [insert your favorite modern general-purpose OS] Doubt it. Linux and most other modern UNIX-like operating systems are monolithic kernels. Windows is (don't laugh now) a microkernel design with a hardware abstraction layer. Chalk and cheese. Windows and Linux (for example) are very different architectures. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #30,246 by Squidley 2/28/02 7:06:04 PM Reply	Architectures Linux and most other modern UNIX-like operating systems are monolithic kernels. I don't think Linux is nearly as monolithic as it (and Unix) used to be. Kernel modules that can be loaded and unloaded at any time are implemented beautifully in Linux, and it appears that more and more optional kernel components support module packaging. Windows is (don't laugh now) a microkernel design with a hardware abstraction layer. Bah, I don't see what the big deal is with the HAL. Linux has no HAL yet has no problem running on more hardware platforms than Windows ever did. Windows and Linux (for example) are very different architectures. The implementations are different but the capabilities are very similar. Both provide "flat" memory address spaces, preemptively scheduled processes and threads, paged virtual memory, full robustness, kernel-level security, similar IPC mechanisms, shared libraries, etc. For some real architectural differences, look at Linux compared to Windows 3.x or the 16-bit OS/2 1.x.
Post #30,131 by pwhysall 2/28/02 7:43:08 AM Reply	Re: This is really funny. he standard command processor in a typical Linux package certainly isn't part of the kernel, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you what would happen to the product if you simply removed that command processor without rewriting the zillion things that depend on it. What zillion things? Please do tell. Most any non-interactive process can run without a controlling tty, ya know. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #30,182 by Squidley 2/28/02 2:13:21 PM Reply	Re: This is really funny. What zillion things? Please do tell. Please see below. Most any non-interactive process can run without a controlling tty, ya know. I know. I'm not talking about things that require a controlling tty; I'm talking about things that require the command processor itself. Below are the results of a very rough search for Bash scripts on a very lightly loaded Red Hat 7.1 system. Note the heavy script presence in /etc. Just as a reminder to keep us on topic, my point here is that\ufffdthe relationship between Bash and Red Hat Linux is very similar to the one between IE and Windows. Not because Bash and IE serve similar purposes, but because in both cases, simply removing the program from the product would greatly damage that product. And that's not because the program is integrated into the product in some "incestuous", unnecessary, or illogical way. It's simply because the product contains many other programs that require the one being removed. /etc/init.d/pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/init.d/crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/init.d/pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/init.d/crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc0.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc0.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc1.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc1.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc2.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc2.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc3.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc4.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc4.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc5.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc5.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc6.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash /etc/rc6.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash /usr/bin/mail-files:#! /bin/bash /usr/bin/mailshar:#! /bin/bash /usr/bin/url_handler.sh:#! /bin/bash /bin/igawk:#! /bin/sh /bin/vimtutor:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/init.d/arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc0.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc1.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc2.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc3.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc4.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc5.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh /etc/rc6.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/catchsegv:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/glibcbug:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/ldd:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/memusage:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/tzselect:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/xtrace:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/batch:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/gettextize:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/mailstat:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/loadunimap:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/mapscrn:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/saveunimap:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/setfont:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/card:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/fixps:#! /bin/sh -e /usr/bin/pdiff:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/psmandup:#! /bin/sh -e /usr/bin/psset:#! /bin/sh -e /usr/bin/texi2dvi4a2ps:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/texi2dvi4a2ps:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/vboxmail:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/vboxplay:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/pdf2dsc:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/db2dvi:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/db2html:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/db2ps:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/db2rtf:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2dvi:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2html:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2man:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2ps:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2rtf:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2tex:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2texi:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/docbook2txt:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/jw:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/rcs-checkin:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/autoconf:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/autoheader:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/autoreconf:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/autoupdate:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/ifnames:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/cvsbug:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/rcs2log:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/libtool:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/libtoolize:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/texi2dvi:#! /bin/sh /usr/bin/texi2dvi:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/python1.5/plat-linux-i386/regen:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/python1.5/config/makesetup:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/rpm/config.guess:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/rpm/config.sub:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/rpm/mkinstalldirs:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/yp/ypinit:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/yp/ypxfr_1perday:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/yp/ypxfr_1perhour:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/yp/ypxfr_2perday:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/emacs/20.7/i386-redhat-linux-gnu/rcs2log:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/emacs/20.7/i386-redhat-linux-gnu/vcdiff:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/cvs/contrib/cvs2vendor:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/cvs/contrib/cvscheck:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/cvs/contrib/rcs-to-cvs:#! /bin/sh /usr/lib/cvs/contrib/rcs2log:#! /bin/sh
Post #30,191 by Andrew Grygus 2/28/02 3:44:32 PM Reply	And just exactly how long would it take . . . . to replace bash with another shell of your choice? 30 seconds? 45 seconds? [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #30,204 by bepatient 2/28/02 4:24:18 PM Reply	Thank you... ...I was just getting ready to post the same thing. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #30,205 by drewk 2/28/02 4:29:29 PM Reply	Besides which ... And correct me if I'm wrong here, but if you really wanted to I'm sure you could modify the scripts to look up what your default shell is and just point it to that. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,206 by Squidley 2/28/02 4:36:06 PM Reply	Re: And just exactly how long would it take . . . . to replace bash with another shell of your choice? 30 seconds? 45 seconds? Even if you did have another suitable Bourne-compatible shell, would it really take you just 45 seconds to retest all those scripts? Just 45 seconds to figure out which ones relied on Bash-specific extensions and port them over to the new shell? What if some lawyers were demanding that you ship a version of your Linux package without a shell? Would it still take you just 45 seconds to respin a fully configured, tested, and working product? What if the component you were being forced to remove did not have any readily available workalikes?
Post #30,210 by ben_tilly 2/28/02 4:39:47 PM Reply	But would it work? You could make the substitution, sure. But bash does not always work exactly like csh or ksh and there is a chance of breakage in some complex shell script. Even so, the replacement of the shell would be relatively simple. But not necessarily utterly trivial. Cheers, Ben
Post #30,235 by Meerkat 2/28/02 6:19:30 PM Reply	Kinda like coding around non-standard behaviour in IE? :) On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #30,293 by wharris2 3/1/02 6:13:03 AM Reply	Oh shock non-standard IE behavior? (me quivers) More proof that squid is a shill. Or a bloody drooling MS "I can't hear anything else (covering ears)" advocate. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #30,283 by pwhysall 3/1/02 2:22:44 AM Reply	OK Just as a reminder to keep us on topic, my point here is that the relationship between Bash and Red Hat Linux is very similar to the one between IE and Windows. Not because Bash and IE serve similar purposes, but because in both cases, simply removing the program from the product would greatly damage that product. And that's not because the program is integrated into the product in some "incestuous", unnecessary, or illogical way. It's simply because the product contains many other programs that require the one being removed. I don't think that it's fair to equate bash with IE - the one is a shell, which has been a OS component since the year dot, and the other, is a web browser. Well, it was. No-one's "extended" bash to the point where things like Apache won't run without it. Hence my comment about running without a controlling tty. Yet I can't install IIS4 on NT4 without installing IE? Wassup with that? And yes, it would require testing and maybe some tweaks to replace bash with the shell of your choice. The point is that it can be done. You cannot replace IE in the same way, because core OS functionality now depends on it. My file browsers don't depend on Mozilla - sure, Nautilus can use Moz to display HTML content, but it critically doesn't stop working if Moz isn't present. I believe that there are moves afoot to enable Nautilus to use the gtkhtml widget to display HTML content. (Sans scripting and net connectivity, natch :-)) Explorer is now basically an IE window with files in it. This need not be the case. I present Windows 95 as evidence. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #29,092 by jb4 2/20/02 2:17:39 PM Reply	You ARE Michel Le Moron! What makes you think IE couldn't be replaced if a 100% workalike was available? It's not like it's tied into the kernel or anything. [emphasis mine] Revisionist history at tis best (or worst).... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #29,100 by boxley 2/20/02 2:59:47 PM Reply	Dont accuse even if he is, let squidly stand or fall on his own petard thanx, bill "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #29,122 by Andrew Grygus 2/20/02 5:31:12 PM Reply	Naah, just went to the same . . . shill school. It's held in a secluded hunting lodge outside Redmond. Graduates of the .SHILL program all sound pretty much the same. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,179 by Squidley 2/21/02 9:23:48 AM Reply	Re: Naah, just went to the same . . . shill school. It's held in a secluded hunting lodge outside Redmond. Well, I see you've done your homework, Mr. Grygus. Excellent. But you know, there's really no need to be jealous. With a lot of hard work, mental preparation, a strict diet, and some intense combat training, who knows? Maybe you could get in too. Graduates of the .SHILL program all sound pretty much the same. We aim to please. Besides, our master wouldn't have it any other way. Make no mistake, Mr. Grygus, we are conditioned to be nothing less than perfect shilling machines, effortlessly making mincemeat out of graduates of the nutcase-0.01-prealpha.tar.gz program.
Post #29,722 by CRConrad 2/26/02 4:57:31 AM Reply	Cosmic-proportion delusions of grandeur from a bad $hilling The Squidster warbles: Make no mistake, Mr. Grygus, we are conditioned to be nothing less than perfect shilling machines, effortlessly making mincemeat out of graduates of the nutcase-0.01-prealpha.tar.gz program. Your record here -- even back when you posted that (though you've been even more conclusively finished off since then) -- has been so far from "perfect" that this post by you is some of the funniest stuff I've ever read on these fora. I think this execrable performance, effortlessly getting yourself chopped into mincemeat, would mean you'd have to refund your thirty pieces of silver to the Dark Tower at Redmond if they ever found out about it. Now shut up and piss off, or we'll tell Billy and his Bally-rog on you. Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #29,730 by imric 2/26/02 6:18:46 AM Reply	Nah. I got the impression that Squidley (named for the Hanna-Barbera cartoon, perhaps?) was just messing with us... And he sure stirred a reponse! Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #29,732 by CRConrad 2/26/02 7:02:02 AM Reply	No, I'm fairly sure he's serious; he's $hilling for real. He might try to change his tune after the fact, "Ha ha only kidding!"-style, but I don't buy it. He's never trolled on anything else but this exact subject (AFAICR); he's $hilled on this one often before; and he's just not funny enough¹ for this to be kidding -- his posts, if they were trolls, would just be bad trolls. Sorry, can't remember any H-B cartoon of that name; perhaps they never aired it in Scandahoovia. Why, is there anything in that to indicate that he'd be trolling in stead of $hilling? 1: Unless he has an extremely poor sense of humour. Hmm, that's of course a possibility not to be discounted... Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #29,735 by imric 2/26/02 7:41:19 AM Reply	Squidley-Diddley; I'm pretty sure that was the character name - not sure if that was the cartoon title. Along the same lines of Peter Patamuus (the hippo in the time-travelling hot-air balloon) as far as the 'look' of the 'toon. Why, is there anything in that to indicate that he'd be trolling in stead of $hilling? IIRC, Squidley was always scheming, sort of a con-man with tentacles... So, no, nothing that I can see grin. I guess that I just can't believe that anyone would shill here for very long (unless they are playing some sort of game) - let's face it, anyone trying convince this group that MS is justified in/by thier actions to date (against all reason and experience) has an uphill row to hoe... Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #29,736 by CRConrad 2/26/02 8:08:05 AM Reply	Yeah, but if you're stupid enough, why let that stop you? Skip averts his red eye from the Dragon: I guess that I just can't believe that anyone would shill here for very long (unless they are playing some sort of game) - let's face it, anyone trying convince this group that MS is justified in/by thier actions to date (against all reason and experience) has an uphill row to hoe... Hey, the Squid has only just started spraying his slimy ink here -- how long did Michel go on and on (and on and on and on...) before he gave it up and ignominously slunk away[]? And AFAICS, it was just as idiotic and hopeless then as now. I think $hills are just more persistent than you give them credit (if that's the right word?) for. Heck, maybe the pay is a lot better than we've been thinking... []: He may try to pass that off as an "act of principle" after having been temporarily banned, but I ain't buying that either. He jumped at the excuse to retreat without admitting defeat -- come to think of it, fuck knows if he didn't provoke it intentionally, for precisely that purpose. Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #29,739 by Silverlock 2/26/02 8:48:05 AM Reply	I can't believe you didn't catch this Isn't it spelled "prima facie"? With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
Post #29,777 by CRConrad 2/26/02 12:02:40 PM Reply	Yeah, I know - but how the heck could I... ...have picked that nit, in a quote I was simultaneously asking to appropriate for my .sig??? Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #29,783 by Andrew Grygus 2/26/02 12:32:16 PM Reply	I used my usual spell checker . . . . a Google search, and found plenty of evidence for facia, including the Cato institute and the government of Manitoba, so I went with it (though I did notice one document that used both spellings). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,793 by Silverlock 2/26/02 12:46:46 PM Reply	Just tried your spell checker Prima facia. ~3,000 matches Prima facie. ~186,000 matches Plus, with Prima facia as the search term, I get the "Did you mean" reminder that usually indicates I mispelled it. Don Richards- Pedants R Us. With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
Post #29,803 by Andrew Grygus 2/26/02 1:18:31 PM Reply	Hmmm . . no such message from Google here . . . . which is a major reason why I didn't look any farther. I watch for that message. Are you using the same Google I am? [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,806 by Silverlock 2/26/02 1:26:07 PM Reply	Those damn bats. They're everywhere. I must have hallucinated the "did you mean" bit. Could've sworn I saw it the first time I did the search. Must not be doing enough drugs. With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
Post #29,836 by CRConrad 2/26/02 2:42:10 PM Reply	So much for those right-wing "think tank" innaleckchuls, eh?
Post #29,740 by admin 2/26/02 8:51:30 AM Reply	I always have to laugh... ... when I see people so seriously (and quickly) condemning anyone with a MS opinion as a shill. :-) Come on, people, not everything is a conspiracy. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #29,754 by ben_tilly 2/26/02 10:17:06 AM Reply	Well if Squidley is not... then I would expect to see a few posts occasionally in some other forum on some other topic. Cheers, Ben
Post #29,763 by Squidley 2/26/02 10:45:34 AM Reply	Re: Well if Squidley is not... then I would expect to see a few posts occasionally in some other forum on some other topic. Nah. Although I have some very strong opinions about politics, current events, the war on terrorism, etc., I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough in these areas to comment. I've thought about commenting anyway\ufffd- you know, a few psychotic rants here, a few accusations of paid participation there\ufffd- but decided that would make me look too much like an immature ignoramus :-)
Post #29,774 by CRConrad 2/26/02 11:57:16 AM Reply	And what makes you think you look any different here?
Post #29,810 by Squidley 2/26/02 1:38:10 PM Reply	Why, your presence, of course! When the nutcases send in their loudest and dumbest, you know they're in trouble :-)
Post #29,838 by jake123 2/26/02 2:43:39 PM Reply	I guess MSFT is expecting to lose, then...
Post #29,845 by Squidley 2/26/02 2:56:14 PM Reply	Sure! Just like they always do :-)
Post #29,862 by Ashton 2/26/02 3:45:46 PM Reply	It ain't over til Judge K-K sings. And I hope she's checking out the Thesaurus for some suitable legalese synonyms for.. slimy, unprincipled, sociopathic greed. And practicing her scales - especially that high C# which clashes with any melody (like the Other one). Meanwhile.. tell us again about the misunderstood, magnanimous just-plain-folks what gave you yer epaulets and sent you out on a suicide mission. Ashton just-plain-folk too. Need a couple bucks for rehab? A little sodium pentothal, perhaps?
Post #29,871 by Squidley 2/26/02 4:07:31 PM Reply	Re: It ain't over til Judge K-K sings. Meanwhile.. tell us again about the misunderstood, magnanimous just-plain-folks what gave you yer epaulets and sent you out on a suicide mission. Ah, it's not so bad. Wading through this cesspool is a dirty job, but it's hardly suicide :-)
Post #29,912 by Ashton 2/26/02 7:18:48 PM Reply	My what colorful intellekchul epithets you have Are these suggested by the Astroturf manual - or just as you remember them from grammar school? So it's cut & dried then.. all those e-mails, all those court proceedings - were no real reflection of the mindsets, the dialogue and actions of your Alma Pater. It's all been 10+ years of a horrible misunderstanding, a folie a milliones - all uniformly Wrong about the facts, the motives, the activities and - the consequences for any semblance of 'competition' in the industry. Let me guess: I'll bet you'll stake your reputation! upon this all having been a massive error, falsified testimony by envious competitors and the sour grapes badmouthing of legions of folks too stupid to recognize - the greatest software inna world - industriously crafted by a quite ethical corporation. Those threats to the OEMs, the preloading or ya get zippo, the DRDOS (settled with nondisclosure), Stacker, etc. - just Never Happened\ufffd Izzat it, close enough? How could we have been so blind? Ashton never mind.
Post #29,931 by Andrew Grygus 2/26/02 11:02:27 PM Reply	Yes, but over at Petrele's VarLinux forum . . . . we've got a real UberShill, [link\|http://www.varlinux.org/article.php?sid=755&mode=&order=0&thold=0\|Alex Tabarrok], who, through his The Independent Institute, has collected well over a quarter of a million $$ for his shilling - a shill so powerful he posts under his own name (and publishes "independently researched" books by members of Microsoft's defense team). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #30,115 by Ashton 2/28/02 1:43:13 AM Reply	Re: Yes, but over at Petrele(y)'s VarLinux forum . . {sigh} Well, he can't be a First String Shill.. After dropping his boilerplate - he faded as the ripostes went for the jugular. The usual tactic is to insert a non-sequitur, like ..but what about dropping the 'tieing' issue? (Kinda like the famous guy who'd show up at Nixon rallies with his sign, What About the Hughes Loan? IIRC that was Dick Tuck.) Imagine what it would be like to be an intelligent (and throw in too, 'informed'?) person.. taking money to go around and try nothing less than fucking.. dissembling - overt lying via omission, obfuscation and patently false semantic tricks. How is it that Murican bizness seems to turn out such critters wholesale? daleross comes to mind, Mr. If it's legal it's ethical Hisself. Screw it. The execrable ones are the unimaginitive clones - saw how M$ did it and.. adapted. 'Whore' is an insult to honorable sex-workers who keep unstable assholes from running amok, hurting innocents - 'cause no one Would screw them (except for cash). That's not even dishonorable. Lying creeps are. Ashton
Post #29,874 by jake123 2/26/02 4:13:03 PM Reply	I think they're going to lose badly this time. It's pretty simple, really. They tried to tell the judge what she was and was not qualified to comment on. They tried the same stunt with the other guy too... which didn't work out too well for them. Simply put, you don't get what you want out of the justice system by trying to tell the judge they're not allowed to do something, esp. when it clearly is within her purview... Finally, you're forgetting that they've already lost... they're guilty. The only question is the punishment. Personally, I think that KK is going to rip Ashcroft's DoJ a new one for the anemic agreement they came up with. There's one other issue to consider as well... the marketplace. Between 09/11 and Enron, people are feeling a lot less tolerant of the kinds of shenanigans that MSFT (and many others) have been getting up to over the last fifteen years or so. I think you (and the marketing mavens at MSFT) are about to get very surprised by the paradigm shift that's occurring right now in the zeitgeist of the marketplace. While we're on the subject... you might to well to consider the damage that MSFT and its behaviour has done to US competitiveness in the global marketplace. A lot of countries are trying very hard to get away from MSFT, because they don't trust them and they don't trust their products. The free ride that MSFT seems to be getting from the regime (not the justice system, the regime) only emphasizes those trust issues in their minds... and extends those trust issues to the US as a whole. -- ---------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org * * [link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org]] [link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org]] * * Montr\ufffdal PQ Canada [link\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org] * ----------------------------------------------------------
Post #29,879 by wharris2 2/26/02 4:28:51 PM Reply	I think you're way optimistic While she may remand the remedies back to the Justice Department for reconsideration, I think they'll just roll over again. I don't think the nine dissenting states will be enough to tilt the balance. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #29,919 by jake123 2/26/02 8:55:13 PM Reply	I don't. Personally, I think she's going to slap them silly. The judiciary is one of the three branches, and has a responsibility to reign in the other two when they don't do their job properly. I think that this is one of those times... and, if I read the signs aright, I think that the judiciary is beginning to think that this is one of those times. The RIAA just got slapped, Enron is there as an object example of what will be coming much more often if the slapping doesn't start (let's face it, while their and their accountant's actions are hardly ethical, moral, nor even necessarily legal, they're depressingly common), and the rot appears to be spreading pretty quickly... while we haven't heard a lot about it, there are some other big bankruptcies going on right now, all with the whiff of crooked accounting attached to them. Here's another factor to consider: K-K ordered them to turn their source over, and there hasn't been a peep from anyone on the subject, least of all MSFT. This would seem to imply that they just handed it over. A lot of the posturing seems to be gone from them. If they've succeeded in convincing her that they're conmen and scam artists (and I can think of a few stunts they've pulled over the last few months that would tend to that interpretation of their characters), she has the power to crush them... esp. if she believes that the DoJ isn't going to do it... and considering some of the tales about the settlement (back room negotiation between the one political guy on the team and MSFT, other DoJ lawyers excluded, and sudden capitulation) she may be coming around to believing just that. You gotta read between the lines with judges, esp. careful ones... and K-K comes across as a careful one. However, if you read judge speak, she's already slapped them around severely a few times... I bet their lawyers are beginning to feel a little bruised, and that some of the top executives are beginning to feel a little scared. Their only problem is... they can't afford to show that fear, which is leading them into further problems. I mean, how do you think K-K is going to take the news that MSFT is using the settlement as a way of pushing their way into their customer's IP? Do you think that she's going to believe that they've figured out that they need to behave like a good monopoly now? -- ---------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org * * [link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org]] [link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org]] * * Montr\ufffdal PQ Canada [link\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org] * ----------------------------------------------------------
Post #29,939 by wharris2 2/27/02 3:44:39 AM Reply	Gates, Ballmer scared? By their actions, you shall know them. They aren't scared at all, they're still going full-tilt. Even using the terms of the proposed settlement to put the squeeze on OEM's (what a surprise). Not the actions of a company in fear of anything. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #29,960 by jake123 2/27/02 10:40:12 AM Reply	Yeah... you're right. Those two are too dumb to be scared. In all seriousness... I think that those actions are going to turn out to be the last gasps of a dying yet still powerful entity. Have you heard about the new lawsuit? I read that they're being sued by a large group of their customer base... HP, Compaq, et. al. The only big player not in on it is Dell (gee, I wonder why). Sony is coming after them too... I suspect that MSFT may find that Sony is something beyond their bullying power... Sony has other resources; they're not a one-trick pony with a sole supplier problem like the big US OEMs. Nope... the vultures are circling, because they are all intelligent enough to see the signs. They're just waiting for K-K to deliver the coup-de-grace before moving in to tear at the carcass... -- ---------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org * * [link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org]] [link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org]] * * Montr\ufffdal PQ Canada [link\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org] * ----------------------------------------------------------
Post #29,741 by imric 2/26/02 8:59:13 AM 2/26/02 9:01:32 AM Reply	Hey! Everyone know that you don't look dragons in the eye (though maybe it's 'cause that means you would be close enough to the beast to make a tempting snack)! Hmmm. Is shilling for dollar$ that common, then? Or are we 'targeted' as a training ground, perhaps? I hope not. grin Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win. Edited by imric Feb. 26, 2002, 09:01:32 AM EST Expand All History
Post #29,745 by Silverlock 2/26/02 9:17:34 AM Reply	Snort "training ground" just gave me a mental picture of a chorus line of shills singing "If I can make it there I can make it anywhere". With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
Post #29,776 by CRConrad 2/26/02 12:00:17 PM Reply	"Training ground"? Dunno... Let's hope it's more like... ...Final proving ground. Should we feel somehow perversely honoured if we are, in effect, their graduation exam? :-) Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #29,891 by bepatient 2/26/02 5:03:56 PM Reply	I noticed (possibly coincidence...possibly not) ...that on a couple of occasions back at IW we hammered through some aspects of the case...after which it would appear in DOJ documents related to the case worded damn near exactly the same as this group had left it. So I would lean with CRC on the final proving ground more than the training ground. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #29,913 by Ashton 2/26/02 7:27:10 PM Reply	Really.. Sure wish you'd copied and matched up a few of those. I mean.. if the DOJ needed IWE to fill in its blanks (no disrespect to the talent here) - that is Scary! Would that also imply that.. there aren't very many other places on the web ~ cogitating, mulling and eviscerating in similar fashion? Maybe InfoWorld was taken a Lot more seriously than it ever deserved (not unthinkable, that) but THIS seriously ?? Shocking thought. Got data? Ashton
Post #29,929 by bepatient 2/26/02 10:33:38 PM Reply	Karsten gave me the archives... maybe I can find something I don't think I was the only one to notice either. Not that I think they needed IWE to do the job...but if you recall we did alot of fine tuning of analogies...and a fair amount of technical shredding of the MS defense documents. As I said...could have very well been coincidence. And at the time..there really wasn't anyplace on the web like IWE for well reasoned technical discussions. At least not that I'd found. There were some pretty heavy hitters signed in over at IWE. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #30,116 by Ashton 2/28/02 1:59:42 AM Reply	True - the roster was larger (and heavier?) Sad part - that those IWE archives are inaccessible.. there were some textbook grade explanations of lots of things - worth preserving. They've been through at least 3 Rent-a-Site morphs since then. I thought that Ben and others downloaded a bunch; some CDs were made. Missed opportunity #103 [??] Dear DOJ, Here are some distilled exchanges re Topics 12, 15, 54A ...n involving persons with the listed credentials. These appear to relate to your present concerns - as to the technical effects of various actions by the MS Corp. Refs. included for the entire threads, of which these are excerpts. Well.. something like that. Ashton
Post #30,128 by imric 2/28/02 6:01:37 AM Reply	If you are nice I'm sure Bepatient would email you the archives.. grin -or- Beep, maybe you could put them on the web? Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #30,143 by bepatient 2/28/02 10:43:19 AM 2/28/02 10:48:33 AM Reply	Would have to be ftp... ...the files are actually rather large in the state I have them. The gzipped archive is 200mb or thereabouts, IIRC...maybe a little smaller. As for posting them to the web...I think we discussed that and decided that we would need everyone to agree to repost...including the IW management...and decided that would be a mondo pain in the ass. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Feb. 28, 2002, 10:48:33 AM EST Expand All History
Post #30,253 by kmself 2/28/02 8:00:59 PM Reply	Legal My sense is that the only source likely to cause trouble would be IWE, and that there's a combination of implied license by individual contributors and relatively low legal risk, to repost comments by others. This is one of the reasons I did a "posts by author" correspondence. This could be used to weed out the IWE-authored posts. Essentially, column text, posts by the various columnists, and the forum editor's comments. All else should be largely in the clear. IANAL, TINLA, YADA. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] [link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|[link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/]] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #30,312 by bepatient 3/1/02 10:27:25 AM Reply	Thats essentially my thinking. But I too am not a lawyer. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #29,201 by Squidley 2/21/02 10:31:13 AM Reply	You ARE too kind! Revisionist history at tis best (or worst).... Huh? Could you please elaborate?
Post #29,084 by Andrew Grygus 2/20/02 1:47:36 PM Reply	Intent Mr. Squidley is simply trying to bury the discussion under definitions and details - a standard lawyer trick when defending someone who's guilt is so obvious there's no other course of action. Didn't we have a recent high profile political case where the definition of "is" was being debated? The question here is Microsoft's intent, and the states want to find evidence of that intent. As any competent auditor can tell you, an inexplicable degree of sloppiness is often evidence for fraud. It prepares the ground for the "Jeez, obviously that was just a mistake, this whole thing is a mess, so it must have been just a mistake." defense. We all know exactly what Microsoft's intent was, the difficulty is in assembling evidence against a company that knew full well it was engaging in illegal activity and covering its tracks. If the states can show unreasonable sloppiness, they can make a point of evidence for "comingling". Of course, if Microsoft's code is as bad as it's reputed to be, it may be difficult to show deliberate sloppiness at any particular point. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #29,125 by imric 2/20/02 6:42:06 PM Reply	No. Again, I'm assuming we both meant "removed" when we said "replaced". Don't assume. The problem was not that MS provided IE - but that MS used it's monopoly to prevent it's customers from installing a competing product. (although somehow that pile of crap managed to find its way onto the last three PCs I bought). Perhaps because IE3, the browser that MS forced on everyone to the exclusion of others, wasn't as good as Navigator - and IE in general is a security risk. The poor quality of MS code apparently made Netscape attractive enough to overcome the artificial barriers to entry that Microsoft created, at least in those cases... Second, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft insisting that OEMs not remove IEXPLORE.EXE Fine. As long as Netscape was an option for OEMs, well and good. It wasn't an option, though, due to heavy-handed licensing, not any spurious technical reasoning. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Welcome to IWETHEY!