Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop

[John Bailo]

The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.

Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.

Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.

In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.

But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.

Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.

And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux.

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi Andrew, You commented: << News links are particularly problematic. >>

Holy Fuck ! A link like this no longer sends me to the article:
http://Google.COM/gr****************...****@Cotse.NET

It takes me to the God Damned Fucking " thread " instead...
And Google can't even thread properly !
It should thread using the 5 most recent MIDs in the References header,
not the God Damned Fucking title.

X.CPP, my newsreader can pull MIDs fine from NNTP servers,
but now Google can't do it anymore !

How do I show just one article using Google ?

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi Pete,

With WinXP you don't have to fiddle with as many distros,
WinXP may, in fact, have more open source than Linux does
but at least you don't have to worry about what distro you're targeting
or whether Jane-Doe will be able to run your code or not.

On the desktop, Linuxes just add too many unnecessary layers of complication.

Further, Ghostscript is not an adequate substitution for
being able to use the same code to write to any screen/printer.

P.S. I noticed you switched to US-ascii 7-Bit recently,
I had to add an extra loop to handle it,
as the bytes are first encoded to 8-bit ( the first loop )
and then the UTF-8 stuff has to be decoded as well ( the second loop ).
The decoding looks like this ( this handles one line ):
( from http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/X.CPP )
int N = B_Nxt - 2 - B ; LnP & LnR = Inc ( Ln ) ;
free ( LnR ); P = LnR = ( LnP ) malloc ( N + 1 );
memmove ( P, B, N ); LnP E = P + N ; * E = 0 ; B += N ; LnP T = P ;
LOOP { P = T ; int Repeat = 0 ;
LOOP { P -- ; int C, CC, UTF_8 ;
while ( ( C = ( uchar ) * ++ P )
&& ! (
C == '=' && P [ 1 ] == '?'
|| ( UTF_8 = ( C == 194 || C == 195 )
&& ( ( CC = (uchar) P [ 1 ] ) & 0xC0 ) == 0x80 ) ) );
if ( ! C ) break ;
if ( UTF_8 ) { memmove( P, P + 1, E -- - ( P + 1 ) + 1 );
* P = ( C & 3 ) << 6 | CC & 0x3F ; continue; }
LnP T = P ; P += 2 ;
if ( ! Repeat ) Repeat = EqiN( P,"UTF-8", 5 );
while ( * ++ P && ! EqiN( P, "Q?", 2 )
&& ! EqiN( P, "B?", 2 ) ); if ( ! * P ) break ;
int Q = EqiN( P, "Q?", 2 ); P += 2 ;
memmove( T, P, E - P + 1 ); E -= P - T ; P = -- T ;
uint X, By, Cnt ; X = By = Cnt = 0 ; T = P ;
while ( * ++ P && ! ( * P == '?' && P [ 1 ] == '=' ) )
if ( Q ) {
if ( * P == '=' ) {
C = HexToN( P [ 1 ] ); CC = HexToN( P [ 2 ] ) ;
if ( C >= 0 && CC >= 0 ) {
* P = C * 16 + CC ;
memmove( P + 1, P + 3, E - ( P + 3 ) + 1 ); E -= 2 ; } } }
else { X <<= 6 ; X |= Tab [ * P ]; if ( * P != '=' ) By ++ ;
if ( ++ Cnt < 4 ) continue;
LnP XP = ( LnP ) & X ; XP += 3 ;
Loop( By * 6 / 8 ) * ++ T = * -- XP ; X = By = Cnt = 0 ;
memmove( T + 1, P + 1, E - ( P + 1 ) + 1 );
E -= P - T ; P = T ; } if ( ! * P ) break;
memmove( P, P + 2, E - ( P + 2 ) + 1 ); E -= 2 ; }
if ( ! Repeat ) break ; }

[Scott M.]

> This is an answer of a truly unbiased and experienced proffesional.

And it`s perfectly useable in every situation and every discussion.

No, it's the response of someone who is completely overwhelmed by the
uninformed, ignorant, incorrect statements that another supposed
"profession al" would actually think that another person would believe.

[Scott M.]

So here we go with the insults (fool, stupid). Now, how does that advance
the topic?

"chrisv" <ch****@nospam. invalid> wrote in message
news:87******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp am> wrote:

Whatever Bill is guilty of as a businessman, I'm
sure that every other CEO of a global company is guilty of as well.
Wrong again, fool. SOME of them play fair, obviously. Maybe even
MOST of them.

Really, what proof or statistics can you show to prove this point?
Microsoft is guilty of breaking *some* laws, but it got where it is mainly
by doing what is perfectly legal. Buying out other companies just to get
their products may not be what some consider nice or good, but it is
perfectly leagal. Most other global companies will do whatever they can
within the boundaries of the law (and also try to bend those boundaries) to
advance their buisness.

See how I said that without calling you a fool or stupid?

So, if
you want to paint Bill and MS as the devil, just make sure you don't fail
to
acknowledge that he isn't alone.

Never said he was alone, fool.

Apparently, you're too stupid to understand that this category of
person (the wealthy businessman) is NOT "all bad" or "all good". It's
a mix, just like most over categories of people. Duh!

I won't say that you are stupid, but I will offer for your consideration
that you have somehow mistaken a single person with a company. You've also
failed to grasp what it was that I said (perhaps as you rushed to call me
names, you didn't get a chance to read and understand it?). Did I say that
anyone was "all good" or "all bad"? Gee, I don't think so.

[Scott M.]

Thank you so much for the continued adult behavior you've shown in this
conversation!

I asked you about your contributions because based on your earlier comments,
I wanted to see where a charitable person, such as yourself, would come in
on the percentage scale. You came it right where I thought you would. It
was a rhetorical question.

Tell you what...When you amass a 100 billion dollar fortune and then decide
to give 50% of it away, come back and talk to me. Until then (and
especially since you don't contribute anything to charity), MY OPINION is
that YOUR OPINION means nothing.

Have a nice day!

"chrisv" <ch****@nospam. invalid> wrote in message
news:go******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp am> wrote:

Like most people, I need to save my money A) guard against an unknown
financial future (e.g. job loss), B) to allow for a few years
retirement before I drop dead.

Bill Gates does not have these issues, hence, the lack of impression
his "generosity " makes upon me, especially considering how he obtained
his wealth in the first place.

You really needed to have that explained to you? Huh.

I don't need you to explain anything to me thanks.

Then why did you ask me about my charitable contributions? Do you
think the finances of the average working man have ANY relevance to
Bill Gates and how much he can afford to give? You must be
particularly dense.

Especially when you
consider a 50 billion dollar donation not impressive.

A) He has not "donated" $50B.

B) As I've already explained, considering how he got his money, and
the fact that giving-away half his wealth will have ZERO effect on his
standard of living, no, I'm not impressed.

>You are obviously ignorant of what the M$ corp has done to get to
> where they are.

And you are even more ignorant if you think that every large company on
the
planet doesn't use the same tactics when they can.

Oh, believe me, I am well aware of the evil businessman, and what his
greed and avarice does to our world.

Then go take your soapbox and plant it in front of every other corporation
and then move to a socialist society that doesn't have capitalism and free
markets.

So you're on of those "love it or leave it" idiots, huh?

No, the evil businessman has his role in our society. Just don't ask
me to think they're "nice guys" just because they go to church and/or
give money to charity.

[Scott M.]

> Idiot.

Your parents must be so proud of you!

Please point to an incorrect statement that I have made in
this thread, with proof that it's incorrect,
Ok, sure:

YOU SAID:

"Liar. He's done no such thing. Stamping-out a copy of Office and
giving that disc to a school is not the same is giving $400 (or
whatever) in cash money or equivalent."

The proof that you are wrong:

The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation does not donate software, Microsoft
does. See
http://gatesfoundation.org/nr/public...s_AR-2003.html
and then click "Finances" for the balance sheet and list of disbursments.

YOU SAID:

"Bill Gates has pledged" is not the same as "Bill Gates has donated",
genius.

The proof that you are wrong:

The above link will prove you wrong here too, as it shows that as of
12/2003, Bill had ALREADY donated over 32 billion. This link
(http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/20/technology/microsoft) proves that LAST WEEK
ALONE, he donated over 3 billion and that still leaves out the normal 2004
contributions. That puts us at about 40 billion ALREADY donated. The
remaining money has been pledged (you do understand that in this context,
pledged does not mean the same thing as "I pledge allegance to the flag...",
right?) which means that he has signed legal documents stating that future
stock sale (that are already arranged) proceeds will go to the foundation.
or STFU.

Now, I'm sure you will find some reason to say that this isn't good enough
but I've got to say that someone like you (who just rants and insults
others) isn't worth any more of my time. If you can't read what I've said
and objectively respond to what I've said then you aren't worth the space
you occupy.

[Sin_City]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi David,
Other than the server/Linux part, you sound like you have
nearly the same work experience as I do ( I too have coded for Win2.0 ).

You wrote: << I just find that Linux is more stable
and requires less tinkering than Windows most of the time,
it doesn't run Windows viruses and displays HTML e-mails as source code
until I click on a button to say that I trust the code
and want to view it formatted
( whoever invented HTML and scripted e-mail should be shot IMHO ). >>

I use my own hand-rolled news reader, X.CPP,
http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/X.CPP ,
it kills all HTML automatically and without regret.
Once my sister sent me an HTML-only e-mail ( Hotmail ),
but she stoped doing that when I ( very politely ) asked her to.
( By the way, why would Hotmail not provide a plain-text section ? )
Had she persisted ( as I told her it was very much her choice )
I would've simply translated the HTML to plain text
Hotmail was doing something really bizarre ( Rich-Text related ),
so the translation-event would've been Hotmail specific.

Using broadband/WinXP_SP2 all day everyday, I get Zero spam and malware,
Except for running spybot a couple of times in the last few months,
( to prove to others how clean my system is, it came up with nothing )
never have I used anti-virus software.

So, as you can see, I don't need Linux to avoid spam and malware.
But, of course, I'm nothing like the typical WinXP user,
I browse the web using only FireFox 1.0, never IE,
I use IE a lot under COM though, for GuruNet's online
encyclopedia/dictionary ( it's one click in Visual Studio.NET to get a
nicely formatted definition ) and so that my FTP folders look/act just
like any other folder on my hard disk. This is the style sheet I use for
both FireFox and IE:
http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/userContent.CSS
It looks like this in FireFox:
http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/CSS.PNG
and like this when IE is automated by GuruNet:
http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/GuruNet.PNG

I use Cotse.NET for on-the-fly e-mail aliases,
SMTP-AUTH/POP3 ( from anyone's LAN, WiFi ) and ad-free web hosting.
Also, I just make it a point to know that's running on my system.

You have to modify X.CPP directly in order to change it's settings,
( see my web page for that http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/ )
so I'm the only one who will probably ever use it.
X is very integrated into VS.NET, including VBA macros
( yet another reason why I'll likely be the only user ).
I'll eventually have X replace VS' functionality, but not anytime soon.

But, if you don't feel like using X ( ha ha ),
you might try 40tude Dialog... it's good too.
( X is the only NNTP/SMTP-AUTH/POP3 client I ever use, by the way )

why dont you take your winxp crap & that piece of shit x.cpp newsreader &
stick it up your ass as far as you can shove it, you worthless piece of
scum.
you like windows so much, go hang out in the windows groups asshole.

--
It's a shame Linux has such difficulty running some of the more popular
Windows applications: Nimda, CodeRed, Klez, WPA, Swen, SoBig, ILOVEYOU,
MyDoom, Witty, Netsky, sober, Mimail, Dumaru......

Windows was created to keep idiots away from Unix.

[Andrew DeFaria]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi Andrew, To this from me: << Tons of sourse code, on tons of distros,
written in tons of languages == tons of Tiny niches.
That sounds expensive to me, even if your time is worth nothing, even
if you're the world's most " literate " programmer. >>

You replied: <<
Do you really think that MS doesn't also have tons of languages ? >>

Exactly, so who needs Linux on the desktop then ?
Anybody who wants his desktop to remain up for a while without having to
reboot it because it loses "system resources" or to install the weekly
security patch.
Re: C's != , You wrote: << In Ada, IIRC, it's <>. >>

No, that's Borland's Delphi. What language do you use the most ?

Whatever's required for the task at hand. I use Perl, PHP, Bash, ksh,
awk, c, c++, VB, VB Script, Ada, Fortran, Cobol. Nothings "the most". It
comes and goes depending on what I'm trying to do however I'd say I've
done a lot of Perl lately and then PHP when doing web things. Never used
Delphi.
--
Copywight 1994 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved.

[john bailo]

Jeff_Relf wrote:

On the desktop, Linuxes just add too many unnecessary layers of complication.
It is actually Microsoft that adds too many unnecessary layers of
complication. OLE, DDE, shared DLLS, assemblies -- all interprocess
communication protocols to try and do the same thing.

Linux makes it all much simpler.

free ( LnR ); P = LnR = ( LnP ) malloc ( N + 1 );

You realize that by using malloc, you can never positivity meter the
speed of your programs, because it's performance varies:
Accroding to TCPP:
http://www.mindspring.net

"Memory manager overhead

When you create automatic objects on the stack, the size of the objects
and their lifetime is built right into the generated code, because the
compiler knows the exact type, quantity, and scope. Creating objects on
the heap involves additional overhead, both in time and in space. Here’s
a typical scenario. (You can replace malloc( ) with calloc( ) or
realloc( ).)

You call malloc( ), which requests a block of memory from the pool.
(This code may actually be part of malloc( ).)

The pool is searched for a block of memory large enough to satisfy the
request. This is done by checking a map or directory of some sort that
shows which blocks are currently in use and which are available. It’s a
quick process, but it may take several tries so it might not be
deterministic – that is, you can’t necessarily count on malloc( ) always
taking exactly the same amount of time.

Before a pointer to that block is returned, the size and location of the
block must be recorded so further calls to malloc( ) won’t use it, and
so that when you call free( ), the system knows how much memory to release.

The way all this is implemented can vary widely. For example, there’s
nothing to prevent primitives for memory allocation being implemented in
the processor. If you’re curious, you can write test programs to try to
guess the way your malloc( ) is implemented. You can also read the
library source code, if you have it (the GNU C sources are always
available)."

[Rick]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:29:56 +0000, Jeff_Relf wrote:

Hi Pete,

With WinXP you don't have to fiddle with as many distros,
What do you mean "fiddle with as many distros'?
WinXP may, in fact, have more open source than Linux does
Show some evidence.

but at least you don't have to worry about what distro you're targeting
or whether Jane-Doe will be able to run your code or not.
Neither do Linux developers.


On the desktop, Linuxes just add too many unnecessary layers of
complication.
Name the unnecessary layers.

Further, Ghostscript is not an adequate substitution for being able to
use the same code to write to any screen/printer.
You must really be an idiot to say that in public.

(BS snipped)

--
Rick