HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 27 Dec 92 04:41:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Dec27.044149.9583
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec27.043712.8259@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.015256.7567@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec25.163338.29576@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec25.102400.13417@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>
>>>Does not the DOS programmer need to know about segment:offset 
>>>addressing, what memory model to use, and when ? Can one program
>>>effectively on DOS without that knowledge ?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, one can, as long as one understands the limitiations between
>>applications development in the true portable sense, and the
>>virtual machine layer that interfaces into the OS and hardware. XED
>>was ported to DOS this way. I know, I did the port. The
>>applications layer was completely unaware of DOS, and compiled to
>>run on 17 other UNIX platforms form the same set of source.
>>
>
>I think that you and Erik are missing my point. The question is 
>not whether it is _possible_ to write some (or even most) 
>applications without knowledge of the system. Or what is the best
>paradigm for programming applications. The question is whether
>knowledge of system is beneficial to a _good_ competent application
>programmer. I am willing to bet that most _competent_ application
>programmer have very good knowledge of the system and do take advantage
>of it.
>

Since it's competency your after, then yes, I have to agree with
you. A competent applications programmer should understand enough
about the architecture he is writing to, to keep himself out of
trouble a large part of the time. Unfortunately, there are very few
competent applications programmers. 

Also, if competency is your premise, then please state it in the
future. It does make a difference.

>Also, while it is possible to use libraries, dont forget that these
>libraries are not free. Not every programmer is able or willing 
>to spend money on them. I am not sure at all these shareware writers
>are in a financial situation to spend on it.
>

You want to play, you gotta pay. If you won't invest the time to
learn it, then you have to pay for the priviledge. Like I said
before, there are very few competent applications programmers. This
is one of the reasons why.

BTW Shareware authors for the most part come from the trenches
where they learned their craft. Some can even afford libraries for
their needs. I have had to both.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:35:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.002800.2739@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec20.193959.250@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Ran
|> dall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec20.161118.6133@qucis.queensu.ca>, jardined@qucis.queensu.ca
|> (Donald Jardine) writes:
|> 
|> >Yes we do.  How can anybody make any kind of case that the users of software
|> >or hardware are being adversly affected?
|> 
|> It isn't a case of the users being affected.  (at least not directly)  It is a
|> case of the companies which compete with MS which are adversly affected.

I _still_ don't understand why anybody thinks that Microsoft has an obligation
to make life easy for its competitors.  Do you feel an obligation to reveal
all of your trade secrets in order to make a "fair" playing field for
_your_ competitors?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cantor@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (scott eric cantor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:40:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.070442.20836@microsoft.com> robertre@microsoft.com (Robert Reichel ms2) writes:
>
>The continual rapid mutation of the computer industry makes the entire
>notion of a "monopoly" on some aspect ridiculous.  Does anyone really
>think that DOS in its current form will continue to dominate the market 
>5 years from now?

	Yep.  How long have mainframes dominated corporate computing?  The only
move people will be making from DOS will be to DOS + Windows as more and more
286's are phased out.  And if what I read about MS's plans in InfoWorld is
true, I'm even more convinced because a 16 bit/32 bit hybrid DOS is being
written that will run a fully 32-bit version of Windows that basically gives
you NT without the networking or security.  But DOS will still lie underneath
it.  It's not going anywhere.

>Competition in the OS market is much more intense
>now than it was 5 years ago, and I personally expect that trend to
>continue.  Any one of SunOS-NextStep-OS/2-Nt-Solaris-Pink-etc could
>be the next DOS, though it is more likely that they will just each
>end up with some share of the high-end market.

	I agree, but UNIX will still no more than a niche player on the
desktop, and OS/2 is stuck in that same limbo unless and until apps start
appearing.

>* Happy ex-developer of OS/2 v2
>* -----
>* "Not even close to being a Microsoft spokesbeing"
>* Robert Reichel (robertre@microsoft.com)



[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Scott Cantor			     UNIX is a small, fast, efficient     ]
[ Ohio State University		     operating system upon which every    ]
[ Columbus, Ohio		     graduate student in the universe has ]
[ 				     played pin the tail on the donkey.   ]
[ cantor@cis.ohio-state.edu		          ---- a UNIX guru        ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11410 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3619
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 2 Jan 93 12:16:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i4132INN6kk
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>Never heard of functional specifications?
>
>   Of course I have.  This is why I can't understand when people
>complain to Microsoft because DR-DOS didn't meet them exactly.

If you exactly meet the Microsoft published specifications for MS-DOS, you
will not be compatible with MS-DOS.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:10:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.043125.42912@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

|> >In other words, if the market DESIRED OS/2 more than DOS+Windows, and
|> >IBM made a similar incentive, Vendors would be flocking to IBM's door
|> >instead of Billy's.
|> 
|> Not when Billy is creating the desire by trying to make certain that
|> absolutely everyone has a copy of Windows.  
|> People have this annoying tendancy to
|> consider whatever they have to be the best, and if Billy and Company make
|> certain that everyone has their system, a lot of folks are just simply going
|> to think it is the only system worth buying regardless of whether it is or
|> isn't.


So the government should prevent Microsoft from makeing it easy to buy
Windows "for our own good?"  People are just too dumb to know what they
want so the goverment should legislate what is good for them.

Don't you see that this is the same reasoning used to justify "family values"
legislation?  Do you like it when the goverment interferes in what goes on
between "consenting adults" in their bedrooms "for their own morality?"
Same principle in FTC trying to regulate business between consenting
companies.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:07:42 GMT

In article <BzoA3B.M18@csfb1.fir.fbc.com>, jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock) writes:
|> 
|> I'm not real interested in arguing the details of this particular
|> case.  I made a general statement about the free market system, which
|> is that it is flawed in that it allows monopolies, and that we try to
|> patch this flaw by interfering with the market.

In all of history (before or after the antitrust laws, or in a country
today which doesn't have anti-trust laws) which became a monopoly?

The only monopolies I can think of are things like the post office,
utilites, etc which are illegal to compete against.  Really, the free
market system is highly intolerant of big behemothic companies, especially
in high tech areas which move as quickly as software.  A monopoly usually
requires a goverment to make competing with it illegal.  If you don't
believe me try to name a counter example.

|> suspect you are one of these people.  So I guess my question is are you
|> defending Microsoft because you don't think it has behaved in such a
|> way as to warrent interference, or because you think it is always
|> immoral to interfere with the free market? 

I am defending Microsoft because I believe that it is always wrong to
steal from somebody, which is exactly what the FTC is trying to do.
Using vague words like "anticompetative practices" and "unfair" just
confuses the issue.  Tell it like it is.  The FTC is threatening to
rob at gunpoint Microsoft's trade secrets.  That is immoral and wrong
under any circuimstances.
From: alane@wozzle.linet.org (J. Alan Eldridge)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The "Major" bug in Winos2 v3.1
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:36:17 GMT
Organization: Disorganization

czmax@cats.ucsc.edu (Max C. Pritikin) writes:

> >Oh yeah, apparently some major or annoying or some kinda bug with HPFS was
> >discovered recently and is now fixed.
> 
> >The error was created when transferring HPFS from assembly to C, and was a
> >very elusive bug.
> 
> >Sorry I don't remember what the bug is, but it was not fixed in the SP.

Can anybody enlighten me by mail as to what this bug is and how it
manifests itself? Thanks.

alane@wozzle.linet.org (J. Alan Eldridge)
Fido: The University of Walamaloo 1:272/38.473
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith)
Subject: Re: Windows NT: The Other side of the coin
Reply-To: pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith)
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:35:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.015023.2841@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.215713.22059@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>
>
>
>>Note that some of these problems also apply to OS/2 2.x (any version).
>>I welcome other people's input on this list, especially how you see
>>OS/2 compare in these areas.
>>
>>     - Mike
>>
>>P.S. - I apologize for posting information about NT in this group, but
>>       I'm sure the people that have a problem with it won't mind this
>>       particular article.
>
>You posted advocacy-type info about NT here, so that is okay.  Just as long
>as no one posts discussion-type info about NT (which would belong in some NT
>discussion group) in an OS/2 group.  Examples of NT discussion that would
>not be welcome in this OS/2 group is like:
>
>   ``>Where can I get the NT beta and a pizza?
>     >Thanks in advance...''
>
>   ``Oh, just call 1-800-xxx-xxxx for NT, and xxx-xxxx for Pizza Hut.
>     Hope this helps!''
>
>or
>
>   ``>>I know what HPFS is and NTFS is, but what is ETFS?''
>
>   ``>Evil Timothy F. Sipples :-)''
>
>   ``dont mention name to me.  he very bad person.  he spread FUD
>     about our NT.  he is fiend.  he not deserve to live in america.
>     send him to foreign place.  i am american since born, but evil
>     sipples must be born jupiter or sun.  who stand up to such evil?
>     even if we chase evil sipples out of america, some NoS/2 person
>     take his place.''
>
>or
>
>   ``>Did anyone hear about the new game applet someone wrote for NT?''
>
>   ``Yes, I installed it yesterday.  In this game you must battle the
>     Evil Sipples and his band of Amigoid-like OS/2 users.  They have
>     been blinded by the greed of IBM.  Beware:  don't be fooled by
>     the Evil Sipples.  He "acts" nice and helpful, but be scared -- be
>     very, very scared.''
>
>i.e. when two or more NT people talk to each other.
>
>-- 
>==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
>::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
>::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
>:::: the OS/2 FAQL   /pub/os2/all/info/faq :::::  ~--~

i like this very much. NT: the New Troglodytism?

BTW, has anyone else noticed that there is actually almost *no* windows 
advocacy in the ms-windows.advocacy group? you look in there every so often, 
and see maybe 8 or so new postings a day. all the windows odvocates (this
was a typo, but may be a freudian slip) seem to be over here!

will the last windows advocate to leave please remeber to turn the lights out, 
etc.?

- Mark

pendrith@cs.unsw.oz.au


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:32:08 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: world,local

In article <1992Dec19.062253.5322@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:

[...]

>Suppose computer dealers start bundling 2400 bps modem cards (a
>non-integrated item) in their computers due to high demand, and they will
>not credit its deletion:
>
>Customer#1:  "I don't need a modem.  Can you credit me?"
>Dealer:      "Screw you.  You are in the minority."
>
>Customer#2:  "I already have a modem.  Can you credit me?"
>Dealer:      "Screw you.  You are in the minority."
>
>Customer#3:  "I would like a faster modem.  Can you credit me?"
>Dealer:      "Screw you.  You are in the minority."

Yes.  Now you've got it.  The thing you left out were the hundreds of 
interactions that went like this:

Customer n:  "You mean I get a modem with this package too?"
Dealer:      "Yes, so many people end up buying a modem separately, we
              use our volume purchasing power to give it to you at a
              much lower cost than you could ever get it."
Customer n:  "Great stuff!"

When the two types of conversations are biased toward the latter, you will
keep getting your modem bundled in.  When the former style becomes a
significant portion of the coversations you'll see modems dropped from the
bundle.

It may piss off three people who go somewhere else (and probably get even
more pissed off there); but it makes lots of people very happy, and therefore
the owners of the dealer very happy.

The arguments for unbundling degenerate into a situation where a system is
designed and built at the dealer, from the motherboard on up.  I don't want
expensive 20 nS RAM chips in the cache.  I want 40 nS chips in the cache;
and I want 256K of them.  I want a ...

Computers are becoming commodities.  You don't custom design a commodity
product for every consumer.  

I simply don't understand the argument.  It's like saying that everybody,
everywhere, should be able to get whatever they want anytime; and if they
can't, the world is somehow broken.  Sounds to me like Governors Clinton and 
Cuomo are behind this :-)

-- Craig 

P.S.  I want a light switch which has a diagonal action.  I demand to be
able to buy it from Ernst, and at no extra cost and with no extra hassles.
Why can't I?  I think we should all descend on Ernst and beat their 
management about the head and shoulders for being insensitive to the needs
of their customers.  Uh, well customer.  No matter!  Kill the incorrect
bastards.  Oops --- bastards and bitches.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:26:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.140240.6978@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>
>>And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
>>information held back by Mircrosoft?


	To clear up this issue, DRDOS 6.0 has no flaws in it's
	"emulation" of MSDOS.  I have programs that will not run
	under DOS5 that run under DRDOS6 (granted, every single
	one of them is an ancient utility from the days of my 8088)
	.  The problem with MS windows 3.1 was two fold:

	1.  The memory manager (*only* the emm386.sys manager, NOT 
	Hidos.sys) had problems dealing with 3.1, just like most
	others (including DOS5's, which Win31 stealth-replaced).

	2.  The Windows setup program looked for an unused identification
	bit that has no bearing on functionality, but is used to identify
	MSDOS (as opposed to DRDOS 3.x---> ).

	3.  There was, withing 24 hours of the Win3.1 release, a patch
	that fixed all of these problems made available on the DRDOS 
	BBS and on Compuserve.  It filtered onto local boards within a month.


>I have had some installation problems in the past when I tried to
>install IBM OS/2 ver. 1.3 on a fully-compatible IBM clone. Should 
>I conclude that IBM conspired against the clone-makers ?


	In fact, yes.  One of the reasons IBM/MS had so much trouble
	hawking OS/2 was the fact that IBM, since they couldn;t manage
	to compete in actual hardware or performance, was trying to
	use OS/2 as a leverage to push it's machines back into
	the marketplace by refusing to help clone owners or 
	resolve problems that could have been fixed with a simple patch
	or two.  As far as IBM was concerned, OS/2 was for PS/2's and 
	nothing more. 


>>--
>>Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
>>Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
>>Phone: +1 604 370 4452
>
>Dov


-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 02:21:37 GMT

In article <C074A6.DGA@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

|> It
|> may indeed be true that slavery was, by legal standards of the time,
|> fair in some arcane sense. I was making a legal claim, however, not a 
|> moral one so the analogy is inappropriate.

I'm not trying to draw an analogy--I'm trying to say that our laws should be
moral.  And I'm also saying that the laws which the FTC are using are
immoral because they sanction theft.

|>   I see, you have been a party to the negotiations and have seen the terms
|> and conditions of the contracts. What, no ? 

Why no--have you?  If so, tell us about it.

|> then you perhaps are making
|> speculations and assumptions like the rest of us instead of speaking from
|> facts.

Perhaps you're doing the same thing?
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11044 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3481
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 29 Dec 1992 00:30:44 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec28.201454.20862@microsoft.com> bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:
>	1. You have DR-DOS6.0, a clone of MSDOS.

Don't forget: 1a. You have Windows 3.0. It works fine with DR-DOS 6.0.

>	2. You buy Win3.1, an MS product that was designed to 
>		work with MSDOS. And indeed it does, as you note.
>	3. You find that Win3.1 doesn't work with DR-DOS6.0
>Then: 
>	4. You complain to MS, not DR, about the problem.

>See my confusion? Doesn't the problem have to do with the fidelity
>of the MSDOS emulation done by DR-DOS? Or am I missing something?
>I'd genuinely like to know...

Yes, you're missing something. When an upgrade of an MS product doesn't work
with another OS on the system, and when the OS is written to duplicate
published MS-DOS functionality, then it's real hard to escape the conclusion
that the upgrade was deliberately set up to break with the other OS...like,
maybe, using undocumented interfaces to the OS...

"We don't have to follow our own rules. We're Microsoft."
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 14:58:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.232450.19632@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.202426.19125@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec25.180324.15834@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>
>> 	No, but the normal cache setting for OS/2 is
>> 	a poor choice for anyone with 8 megs or more.  
>> 
>> 	We can assume that either NT is the same (and the original
>> 	user, with 16 megs, has adjusted it) or that it auto-adjusts.
>> 	If the later, then my argument is eliminated. 
>
>Do you know NT auto-adjusts anything? As I said in an earlier follow-up, the
>NT I am using was originally installed on an 8 meg system......so if it
>auto-adjusts upwards....it should auto-adjust downwords too....right? 


	Nope--rethink.  Even if NT doesn't auto-adjust, you can bet
	that Mr. 16-meg-previous-owner adjusted it for his
	16 meg system. 

	Get it yet?  It's not that hard.


>> 	I do not know whether it does or not.  But I am *certain* 
>> 	that if it does not, the previous owner would have fixed it
>> 	for his 16 meg system.
>
>I can assure you that he did not.


	Are you sure of that?  C'mon.


>> 	You're thinking like a dos user.  It is not a bad idea to have
>> 	the system auto-adjust and *allow* the user to fix it when you're
>> 	talking about something that's suposed to be user friendly.  
>
>OS/2 ignores cache setting amount higher that 2048K.....



	That's because it's stupid.  IBM should fix it, but they
	have no intention of doing so.



>> >Let me see now. Having OS/2 installed on a 6 megger and then
>> >adjusting the memory settings of the 16 meg system would
>> >result in the exact same setup right?
>> 
>> 	...only if you then took *that* setup (the one optimized for
>> 	16) and moved it *back* to a 6 megger w/o *any* change.
>
>This simply wasn't the case....the NT Iam using was installed on 8 megs....ad
>is running on 8 megs.....



	Fine.  Let's modify it.

	1.  Install OS/2 in 4 megs.
	2.  Add four megs, make necessary adjustments (i.e. you can
	run HPFS now, boost cache sizes)
	3.  Remove 4 megs,post FUD to the net about how bad the
	system is.



-- 
       "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

     Equality is a delusion, suffering is a fairy tale and God is a fantasy.
       Blaming society for inequality is like blaming the sky for rain.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy