I wrote 'Nuke Redmond'

From: jpero_at_cgocable.net <(jpero_at_cgocable.net)>
Date: Sun May 7 22:21:10 2000

> From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc_at_armigeron.com>
> Subject: Re: I wrote 'Nuke Redmond'
> To: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org
> Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 00:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
> Reply-to: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org

>
> I'm replying to several messages, all by Richard Erlacher, here in one
> message:
>
> > I'm often puzzled by the complaints about "crashes" under Win9x and NT.
> > My notebook, running Win95, hasn't crashed, although it's been in almost
> > constant use since early '97 when I bought it. Now, the machines into
> > which I routinely stick cards that may or may not work, along with
Hi,

> Now, how much damage did the ILOVEYOU virus do? How much will it cost to
> fix the damage that ILOVEYOU virus did?

3 weeks ago, relative's machine dual HDs contents went poof and all I
go on with their history that was playing the bingo on web when it
happened. I suspected virus. I pressed for more info but they
couldn't come up with something that they might have unwittingly
brought in virus. :-(

Snip

Snip
> I doubt that. The free BSDs or Linux is a good counter example. And if
> you wish to discount the operating system, there is Apache. And if you wish
> to discount servers, the GIMP. While it isn't up to the functionality of
> Photoshop it certainly does anything a home user would want it to do.

Ditto, I doubt M$ to produce decent s/w and OSes and there's the wide
range of confirmed reputations that said M$ pulled fast and dirty
tricks to "break" other non-M$ stuff if they feel like it. There's
the bloat, win2k weighs in over 440MB installed and requires gobs of
ram and 500+MHz cpu to perform. Kernel itself on that Linux is OS
and fits on one 1.44MB disk. XFree86 is much smaller and responds
quicker. There is at least 3 or 4 different Xwindows for linux.

>
> Nature abhoors a vaccum and if Microsoft is gone, it will be filled in
> rather quickly. Ding dong the witch is dead and all that.

Exactly. There will be lot of suing and heavy shake-out in
industry grabbing remains to get documentations to convert their
M$-produced over to non-M$ formats.

>
> > Even if someone else could do it, which I seriously doubt, it's unlikely
> > anyone can come up with an OS capable of competing against Windows, if the
> > same tests are to be applied that have been used to determine MS'
> > practices monopolistic or anticompetitive.
>
> I don't follow your logic here. Which tests are you referring to?

Oh yes, Wine for linux. Windows emulator.
 
> Outside of marketing, there is no technical reason why a Windows-like (or
> Mac-like) graphical user interface can't be built upon X Windows (the

Exactly, OS is just that OS. Apps and drivers runs on top of that
OS. But M$ look at this differently and force us to take IE with
win98. This I do not want to have on mine, I think this is major
source and share of other problems by some other M$ stuff
problems before the CIH virus came.

>
> > If the complete source code
> > for Windows is to be mandated by the courts to be made available to anyone
> > who wishes to write applications for Windows, MS is correct in demanding
Snip

> Why? Such draconian measures would be such that you might not get very
> many companies (or programmers) willing to even consider such a deal.

Court would see that clearly and will say denied to M$ demand if
court orders Windows open-sourced. I think.

Snip
> > except in permanently recorded written form for a period not less than
> > five years beyond the end of the economic life of that product. I doubt
> > that will happen.

Again whom to do this, M$? 5 yr is short. 10 is about right,
better yet, 15.

>
> Again, why do you think this?

Snip
>
>
> Personally, I feel that the two worst things to happen to our industry
> have been Unix and Microsoft. I won't go into why I think Unix is bad, but
> Microsoft has definitely kept the industry back technically, if only with
> entrenching the poor design of the IBM PC as a standard for nearly 20 years.
> Hell, if this sets the industry back 20 years that'll be the best thing to
> happen! Imagine, decent hardware! Software that actually works! Less
> slavish reliance on computers! That's bad?

This is about to change already, leagcy-free machines for windows
IS coming out. No ISA, PCI, PS/2 ports, IDE, etc, just USB and
firewire. Who has the two monoplies in this? Intel for this
chipsets and M$ for OS and stuff.
 
> Another bad aspect of Microsoft is the proliferation of file formats.
> Microsoft Word 6 format is imcompatible with Microsoft Word 95 format is

Snip, this one is clearly breaking communication standards. In old
days, ASCII was the rule and anyone could share the data easily with
some conversion if required. M$ broke this idea and locked in users
to windows and their buggy s/w, some s/w made for minority HW (Apple
for example) because of this.

> It's not hard to create a file format that is extensible, nor forward and
> backward compible. To bring this back to topic, I have extensive
> documentation on IFF, initially designed and documented in 1986 for the
> creation of files that can be extensible and forward/backward compatible,
> such that a document created with a program now can be opened with a program
> written 10 years ago and have it not crash (or at least be able to do
> something with the file and not loose the extra information).

That is what I wanted to see because I often hit this wall when I
need certain documentations and that one was made with old Word or
works and I can't use it because M$ readers took a dare and said
"Eek, too old!" in my face when I tried to open them.

>
> And it certainly doesn't take one megabyte to store a single page of
> information. That is just plain insane.

Appox 1K in ascii.

>
> > jpero_at_pop.cgocable.net
> >
> > > What I was thinking of is a untoucheable and invisible OS and for
> > > managing data is data users created only. Applications and any little
> > > utils, drivers and hardware all are seen as "modules". Drivers and
> > > hardware go hand in hand and is therefore as hardware module set. For
> > > applications and small utils, they would be software modules.
> >
> > That would be a WONDERFUL idea ... an OS distributed on ROM. I trust
> > you'll start on that immediately.
>
> Again, to bring this back on topic, there have been plenty of operating
> systems distributed in ROM---AmigaOS, QNX, OS-9 and the original MacOS were
> all contained in ROM, were/are ROMmable and extensible. And all are older
> than 10 years old. Even MS-DOS came in ROM format for some computers
> (although I'm not sure if it ran out of ROM, or was copied to RAM before
> running).

Most of these user interfaces listed, (did tried them in my travels,
they're great for nerds and common-sense clueful users but
downright scary and mind-boggling to most), is not good enough for
IQ-impaired people who basically understood what it is if presented
in a way like the Myst and Riven, "The Crystal Key" interface style.

I-opener came very close to what I talked about because I was there
on their website. Missing part is doesn't large enough HD and way to
add software in understandable manner.

This is best to remove the OS from user interface equation focus on
hardware modules and software modules interfaces, software frequently
too large to fit on largest flash cards. If one pop a cd or future
solid holographic storage crystal into said machine I referred to.
Then this software installs itself automatically and software module
appears where empty socket was without any part on user's. The
cd/crystal is now removed and that module remains in that machine.

That is why simple devices kept selling: typewriters, simple s/w
like works, phones, external fax machines, copiers,
electronic appointment organizers, N64/PSX etc.
 
> -spc (Have you actually USED anything other than Microsoft products?)

Yes.

Wizard
Received on Sun May 07 2000 - 22:21:10 BST