Sorry all. I answered the wrong thing. I'll just go crawl back under my
jeep...

"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OMadnQOI97i5oJuiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
> No, but I'm only about 2 1/2 hours from paragon adventure park. They have
> all the rocks I can handle. I'm also about 1 1/2 hours from the NJ pine
> barrens. All the sand, water, and mud I could want. All in all, it's not
a
> bad spot.
>
>
> "Sebastian Cabot" <been@deadforyears.com> wrote in message
> news:9KnNa.1682$7e.1279@fed1read07...
> > Not good for rock crawling :-(
> >
> >
> > "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> > news:adnNa.1844$E83.12472391@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > > I'd like a Camaro actually (in addition to my Alfa and Jeep).
> > >
> > > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> > >
> > > "Sebastian Cabot" <been@deadforyears.com> wrote in message
> > > news:JImNa.1678$7e.1107@fed1read07...
> > > : I was thinking more like "nightmare." I had one like that once; not
in
> > > Delaware but still
> > > : somehow my truck disappeared and turned into a Camaro. I woke up in
a
> > > sweat when I tried
> > > : going off road with it...
> > > :
> > > :
> > > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> > > : news:5BmNa.1791$6P2.12109964@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > > : > old age ?
> > > : >
> > > : >
> > > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> > > : >
> > > : > "Sebastian Cabot" <been@deadforyears.com> wrote in message
> > > : > news:JvmNa.1675$7e.1413@fed1read07...
> > > : > :
> > > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> > > : > : news:IumNa.1786$HM2.12073071@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > > : > : >
> > > : > : >
> > > : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > > : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> > > : > : >
> > > : > : > "Sebastian Cabot" <been@deadforyears.com> wrote in message
> > > : > : > news:epmNa.1671$7e.1164@fed1read07...
> > > : > : > :
> > > : > : > : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> > > : > : > : news:LdlNa.1676$l21.9938158@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > > : > : > : > Hey, lighten up a bit !
> > > : > : > : >
> > > : > : > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > > : > : > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> > > : > : > : >
> > > : > : > : > "Sebastian Cabot" <been@deadforyears.com> wrote in message
> > > : > : > : > news:ublNa.1663$7e.1282@fed1read07...
> > > : > : > : > : well I thought the comment was directed at you which
makes
> no
> > > : > sense to
> > > : > : > me.
> > > : > : > : > People who live
> > > : > : > : > : in the West have the best places to four wheel and you
> have a
> > > nice
> > > : > : > looking
> > > : > : > : > rig; maybe some
> > > : > : > : > : people don't have the tricky Usenet art of quoting
> mastered
> > > yet.
> > > : > : > : >
> > > : > : > : >
> > > : > : > :
> > > : > : > : if I were any lighter, a good wind would blow me east of the
> > > : > continental
> > > : > : > divide
> > > : > : > :
> > > : > : > :
> > > : > :
> > > : > : Imagine waking up one morning and finding that you lived in
> Delaware
> > > and
> > > : > drove a
> > > : > : Saturn.... what would you call that?
> > > : > :
> > > : > :
> > > : >
> > > : >
> > > :
> > > :
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <o0o7gvoq12buqnucardko8qf4ea3sreu93@4ax.com>,
> Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>
>>>>Jeepers drive a Jeep during activity known as Jeeping. Jeeping can take a
>>>>Jeeper in a Jeep many places, most of them unacceptable to Lloyd.
>>>
>>>Ever hear of a thing called a dictionary?
>>
>>Yes. They list "jeep" in there (note the lower case "j" and all the
>>implications that go with it).
>>
>>Marc

>Mine says a noun only.

From http://www.m-w.com/home.htm:
Main Entry: 2jeep
Function: intransitive verb
Date: 1942
to travel by jeep

Of course, they also list the noun

>And it is a registeted trademark, so you've got to be careful how you use it.
>Like not calling every soda a "Coke" or every copier a "Xerox."

It isn't a trademark. D-C claims it is, but the fact that every dictionary
I've ever looked in has it there in lower case would tend to indicate that
it has reached wide-spread use for purposes other than to identify the one
trademarked item. They lost the trademark on it long ago, but they haven't
tried fighting anyone in court for an official ruling.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>>
>> Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Another oddity: On the "100 Greatest Country Music Songs" on CMT, it
>> >was remarked that only Loretta Lynn could rhyme "hard" and "tired" in a
>> >hit song and make it sound natural (song "Coalminer's Daughter").
>>
>> That would seem natural for any one from the south. "Tired" is pronounced
>> "tard."
>>
>I hope you're not implying that everyone in the south prounces it that
>way - I certainly don't (born and raised in VA) - it's more NC, GA, W
>VA, TN, KY hill or trailer park accent.

You left out MS, LA, TX, OK, AR, and possibly some others.

And yes, I am stating that the Southern Accent (tm) does pronounce it that
way. If you are claiming to be from the south but not pronounce it that
way, then you don't have the Southern Accent (tm).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

'nuther Bob <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:49:30 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>
>>There isn't any food allowed in my current car, and it isn't that nice of a
>>car. I'd expect that I'd not let food in my Ferrari as well, if I had one.
>
>That's like removing your shoes when you enter the house, or not
>allowing eating in the living room.
>
>You gotta kick back a little more.

I allow eating in the living room. Wood floors wipe easily. The shoes
come off when you come in the house, but that is a normal thing here.

There is no reason to eat in the car. If you need to eat, stop. Where is
the problem?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:

>"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:non8gvkb42m6r00f3atbm8dogpnmmogjes@4ax.com...
>: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
>: <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
>:
>: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application and
>: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were taking
>: >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The
>: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
>:
>: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep things secret"
>: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience should
>: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is simple to
>: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is mainly
>: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from anyone.
>
>Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days experience knows that
>he minimises the impact of change by using the *published* API which is
>supported.

Different issue. You are talking about best practices, while the
original point was about keeping things secret. You do understand the
difference, I presume.

Sure, I understand the difference. Microsoft has documentation on how to use
the dlls, and its opaque to everyone else. Simply knowing its there isn't
good enough to bet your business on. You don't necessarily know what the
side effects are, or what the return codes are. Most programmers have not
enough time to go around playing with reverse engineering dlls. These facts
mean that MS can exploit an unfair advantage by not publishing a better API.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qblcgv4hgf7ros45da5sbu1aeg5spi1s3u@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
: <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
:
: >"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
: >news:non8gvkb42m6r00f3atbm8dogpnmmogjes@4ax.com...
: >: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
: >: <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
: >:
: >: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application and
: >: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were taking
: >: >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The
: >: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
: >:
: >: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep things secret"
: >: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience should
: >: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is simple to
: >: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is mainly
: >: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from anyone.
: >
: >Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days experience knows
that
: >he minimises the impact of change by using the *published* API which is
: >supported.
:
: Different issue. You are talking about best practices, while the
: original point was about keeping things secret. You do understand the
: difference, I presume.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:43:05 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:

<correct about MS: it's a political issue. With a different White
House, we would have seen a different result. Lets not forget how
much of the case the Justice Dept dropped, how they changed the
remedy they were seeking, and how they decided to settle with
little attention to the (already proven) monopolistic actions.>


>PS and for those spoilsports that want to know what all this has to do with
>cars, you might ask yourself why are the automakers allowed to screw over
>the repair shops by not standardizing on a single kind of engine computer
>diagnostic interface? They are adding more and more software to cars
>every year, and many of the same issues (software bloat, etc) are going to
>become increasingly important. If you keep an eye on what is going on
>in PC software, you may get a jump on what could happen to
>engine computer software in the future.
>

Since we'll be down to 3 to 5 or so auto manufacturers very soon,
it may happen quicker that you think.

Bob

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:57:59 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:

>'nuther Bob <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:49:30 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>
>>>There isn't any food allowed in my current car, and it isn't that nice of a
>>>car. I'd expect that I'd not let food in my Ferrari as well, if I had one.
>>
>>That's like removing your shoes when you enter the house, or not
>>allowing eating in the living room.
>>
>>You gotta kick back a little more.
>
>I allow eating in the living room. Wood floors wipe easily. The shoes
>come off when you come in the house, but that is a normal thing here.
>
>There is no reason to eat in the car. If you need to eat, stop. Where is
>the problem?

No problem, but you have a phobia. Asking folks to remove their
shoes when entering the house is the first sign.



Bob

'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:57:59 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>
> >'nuther Bob <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:49:30 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>There isn't any food allowed in my current car, and it isn't that nice of a
> >>>car. I'd expect that I'd not let food in my Ferrari as well, if I had one.
> >>
> >>That's like removing your shoes when you enter the house, or not
> >>allowing eating in the living room.
> >>
> >>You gotta kick back a little more.
> >
> >I allow eating in the living room. Wood floors wipe easily. The shoes
> >come off when you come in the house, but that is a normal thing here.
> >
> >There is no reason to eat in the car. If you need to eat, stop. Where is
> >the problem?
>
> No problem, but you have a phobia. Asking folks to remove their
> shoes when entering the house is the first sign.
>
>
>
> Bob

Or you might simply have gotten into the habit by having lots of
Japanese, Korean, etc. friends. I do it more or less automatically now,
even at my own place.

Besides, that way it's easy to tell when you need to clean the kitchen
again

nate

I don't see how it's unfair at all. Microsoft wrote those functions, and
tested them, at a considerable cost of money, testing, and whipping
programmers into working overtime. A considerable amount of blood, sweat,
and tears went into those APIs. Now a federal judge says that the rest of
the world gets them essentially for free, before Microsoft decides that it
is time on its own. No, I don't see how this is fair at all. If you want
to write Windows programs, you should have to play ball with The Great Satan
in Redmond on his own terms.

Earle
http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:wtvNa.2144$Ds6.14093525@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Sure, I understand the difference. Microsoft has documentation on how to
use
> the dlls, and its opaque to everyone else. Simply knowing its there isn't
> good enough to bet your business on. You don't necessarily know what the
> side effects are, or what the return codes are. Most programmers have not
> enough time to go around playing with reverse engineering dlls. These
facts
> mean that MS can exploit an unfair advantage by not publishing a better
API.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:qblcgv4hgf7ros45da5sbu1aeg5spi1s3u@4ax.com...
> : On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
> : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
> :
> : >"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
> : >news:non8gvkb42m6r00f3atbm8dogpnmmogjes@4ax.com...
> : >: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
> : >: <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
> : >:
> : >: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application and
> : >: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were taking
> : >: >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The
> : >: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
> : >:
> : >: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep things secret"
> : >: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience should
> : >: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is simple to
> : >: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is mainly
> : >: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from anyone.
> : >
> : >Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days experience knows
> that
> : >he minimises the impact of change by using the *published* API which is
> : >supported.
> :
> : Different issue. You are talking about best practices, while the
> : original point was about keeping things secret. You do understand the
> : difference, I presume.
>
>

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:43:05 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:

>
>"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:non8gvkb42m6r00f3atbm8dogpnmmogjes@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
>> <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Here is where I take issue. I used to support MS no matter what. No
>> >>longer. However, the companies that claim MS is unfair are
>> >>complaining because MS is better at producing competitive products.
>> >>There is no monopoly, certainly no illegal one, unless you use your
>> >>clout in the market to reduce competition AND THEN use the reduced
>> >>competition to increase profits. >MS has never done this.
>> >
>> >I'm not talking about those complaints. MS ordered hardware vendors
>> >to sell their OS, and only their OS, on their systems. If you want(ed)
>> >to sell Windows on a PC you had to agree to install only windows.
>> >That was clearly illegal under US law. Also, although not quite as
>>
>> Not quite. Microsoft had agreements that required the vendor to pay
>> for Windows whether they installed it or not. Yes it was found to be
>> illegal. No, it was not clearly so.
>>
>
>I hope you can stand another "no, not exactly"

Sure, since you only clarified my point.

>Those agreements of Microsoft ONLY applied if you were a PC manufacturer
>that was purchasing "OEM" licenses at the cheap rate, of course. If you
>were
>including discounted "retail" licenses you could do what you want.
>
>Considering that the OEM license are about $12-20 and the retail licenses
>(in quantity) are about $50, and the PC manufacturers were tacking on about
>$100
>extra for the license, I don't really feel that sympathetic to them.
>
>> Let's assume a fair price for Windows to a vendor is $50, and the
>> vendor sells 100 copies a year. They also sell 10 systems with Linux.
>> That comes out to $45.45 per system, or $50 per Windows system. If
>> Microsoft sells it to that vendor under the agreement that it is based
>> on systems sold (regardless of OS) for $40, the vendor wins. That is
>> not unfair or illegal, no matter what the sleeping judge found.
>>
>
>This is true if that is what was happening. But was WAS happening is that
>vendors (like Dell) that had a corporate policy of NEVER selling ANY
>systems with Linux preloaded, they got the Windows copies at the
>$40 price. Vendors like IBM/Compaq/HP that sold a few Linux preloaded
>systems got the Windows copies at $50.

This is misleading. Dell sells far more systems than IBM could ever
hope to sell, so IBM should pay more.

>Microsoft was very arbitrary on the costs to the OEM of Windows. It
>was not based on volume or anything like that, it was polically based. It
>was no different than if a Negro-owned business that sold 500 tractors
>a year had to pay $10,000 per tractor, (less shipping) while a White-owned
>business
>that sold 50 tractors per year only had to pay $7,000 per tractor (less
>shipping) for
>the same tractor.

The same as every other company. Pricing is based on the relationship
between the customer and the sales person, not on volume. If the
customer can negotiate better, they get a better price.

This is not an argument to suggest that IF someone bases price on race
that would be acceptable, but it is an argument that companies are
legally able to set pricing based on the perceived value of their
customer.

>> >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application and
>> >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were taking
>> >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The
>> >list goes on, those are two major issues.
>>
>> This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep things secret"
>> in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience should
>> know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is simple to
>> look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is mainly
>> DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from anyone.
>>
>
>Once again this is a simplification of the issues.
>
>Yes it is not possible to "hide" functions. The problem is, that Microsoft
>has
>no responsibility to maintain consistency with functions that are
>undocumented.

Agreed.

>So what was happening is that Microsoft Office would make use of an
>undocumented function, and a competitor like WordPerfect would make use of
>the same
>function. Then Microsoft would plan on changing that function in the next
>version of Windows, and they would inform their MS Office development
>team. So that team would stop or change using that function and release a
>new version
>of Office, as well as patches for the old versions of Office that mitigated
>the
>change in the function.. Wordperfect would not of course be informed of the
>pending
>change, and so then when the next version of Windows was released,
>the new version of Wordperfect would crash on it, while the new version of
>MS Office
>wouldn't, and most people would have patched their old versions of Office.
>And if people were doing in-place upgrades of Windows, the new version of
>Windows would search their hard drive for the old version of MS Office
>during installation and patch it if it wasn't patched.

I am not sure if you really understand how Windows works. Your
explanation is inaccurate. Maybe you, like me, do not wish to take
the time to explain in detail what you are saying. For example, you
suggest that people are patching their old versions, which would make
the same thing available to the new competitive product. So what is
the problem. They took the time to discover the function, they should
test it.

>> Improvements? It sucks. Ever try to network XP with 98 where one
>> system has NetBeui installed? Can't do it! MS likes to say NetBeui
>> is not supported. So? It didn't magically stop working - until MS
>> MADE XP networking NOT WORK when one system has NetBeui and another
>> does not.
>>
>
>Very little supports NetBIOS Extended User Interface (NetBEUI) these
>days other than Windows and old IBM Lan Manager/OS2. The few
>networking devices like print servers are dropping support for it, and
>why not? NetBEUI isn't routable anyway.

Correct, but MS making it NOT WORK is bull****.

>Windows 98SE has TCP/IP in it and supports Automatic IP Number Assignment
>(ie: negotiating IP numbers when a DHCP server is not present) as does
>XP, so this is not a serious problem. While it's facinating to me that
>they dropped support in XP as I didn't know that, I rather see this as an
>improvement. I've seen many corporate networks with unauthorized
>filesharing
>going on from people using NetBEUI that has caused problems for the
>system administrators.

Yes, but for a small business network, NetBeui is superior to TCP/IP,
as it is much faster. TCP/IP is overkill for less than 10 systems,
and yes, not everybody has or needs Internet access.

>> Interesting point, but Netscape was trying to force their standards on
>> the Internet the same way. Java Script was not invented by Sun, but
>> by Netscape. Ever heard of JSS? Netscape doesn't follow W3C
>> standards any better than MS.
>>
>> Every company tries to get an advantage. There is nothing illegal
>> there. It becomes illegal when you try to prevent your competition
>> from succeeding by designing your product to prevent theirs from
>> working. To my knowledge, that has never been proved.
>
>It also becomes illegal when you design your product to not work
>unless the customer ALSO buys all the REST of his products from
>you.

Sure, but I don't believe that happened.

>> >WHen it comes to applications,
>> >I've yet to see any real "improvements" in MS Office, Front Page,
>> >etc, in the last several releases. The only real changes were in
>> >the way the products integrate with each other and the Internet.
>> >That's all part of the MS OD-Application-Internet power grab.
>>
>> Because other companies stopped innovating also, so they have less
>> reason to do so. Also, possibly because there is nothing more Office
>> can do, but ...
>>
>
>Many would say there's nothing more that Windows can do either,
>and question why upgrade at all, when your Win98/Win2K/Office 97/
>Office 2K setups all work fine, and do what the users want to do.

Like me!

>> Wait. Microsoft had a contract that allowed them to add extensions.
>> Many documents from Sun's president proved this - he was upset that
>> Sun agreed to let them.
>>
>> The COURT ruled that MS had to remove Java support. It did not say
>> they had to replace it with Sun's version until it realized the error
>> it made.
>>
>
>Most of this of course is a moot issue since there's no real proof that Java
>does anything any better than many of the other 4GL scripting languages.
>And worse, since it ties you to the browser (if your developing "thin
>client"
>apps) there's a movement to push all the scripting back onto the server
>(whether it's Java or something else) and only have the browsers displaying
>pure HTML. Then it doesen't tie your app to specific web browser versions.

I have never been a fan of Java. Over hyped, under performing. It is
not cross platform. The VM is cross platform, but you could write a
VM for C++, VB, Fortran, ADA or any other language. I hate when
companies lie.

>> I do
>> agree that it is an issue, I just don't agree that MS is any worse
>> than Sun, Netscape or AOL.
>
>Then your not in accordance with current US law. The law says that
>monopolies are illegal, and Microsoft is a monopoly by any reasonable
>definition, and also now legally. So legally they are worse than those
>other companies since none of them have been ruled a monopoly.

Personally, I don't believe they are a monopoly. The judge slept
throughout he trial, so any findings of fact he made are irrelevant.
He was at best a moron, and at worst a paid shill for the competition.

Second, there is competition, and always has been. The competition
has always sucked, until Linux. Even that is a problem because most
people are not capable of installing Linux. Still, difficulty of use
does not make MS a monopoly.

However, I see why some people think they are. I just disagree.

>> >You need to look at the global issues and goals of MS to understand
>> >how these "little" issues add up to the big picture of squashing
>> >the competition through any means, legal or illegal.
>>
>> Agreed, and if it is illegal it must be stopped and punished, WIHTOUT
>> punishing the consumer.
>
>The current legal notion and not just in the US but in most developed
>countries, is that monopolies punish the consumer by their very existence.
>Microsoft did in fact try a rather novel approach to fighting the anti-trust
>trial by claiming that the plantiffs needed to show that this was true, and
>moreover that there was evidence that their practices did in fact, harm
>the consumer. However ultimately they did lose the war, because the
>plantiffs basically stated (properly IMHO) that this wasn't the issue.
>Where Microsoft's arguments did in fact matter was during the penalty
>phase of the trial. Since there really wasn't enough evidence that
>Microsoft
>was in fact harming consumers, they escaped without the judge ordering
>the company to be split up.

>However, this issue isn't going away, and I predict within another 10 years
>that we are going to see another anti-trust trial get fired up again,
>because
>I don't see strong enough market trends to see Microsoft's claim on the
>North American software market to be reduced to a non-monopoly
>level. Until that happens, Microsoft is going to be vulnerable to another
>anti-trust trial. All it would take is a change in administration in the
>White House and you would see this start up all over again. And the
>next time it does, they won't get away with a mere slap on the wrist,
>because Justice will argue that they've been warned once already, and
>had plenty of time to change their market practices so their competitors
>could gain a healthy market share.
>
>Ted
>
>PS and for those spoilsports that want to know what all this has to do with
>cars, you might ask yourself why are the automakers allowed to screw over
>the repair shops by not standardizing on a single kind of engine computer
>diagnostic interface? They are adding more and more software to cars
>every year, and many of the same issues (software bloat, etc) are going to
>become increasingly important. If you keep an eye on what is going on
>in PC software, you may get a jump on what could happen to
>engine computer software in the future.

How true. Most repair shops, including dealers, that I have used,
have no clue how to use the diagnostic software. When we bought my
wife's new car, I had to help the repair guy figure out what to do.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:03:09 GMT, dodgeboy <68gtx44000@rogers.com>wrote:

>Isn't it nice when Lloyd has a day off work. So he does not sit at his
>work computer all day trashing Chrysler products.
>He's the worst kind of Troll!!!!!!!
>Barry A. Lee

Why do you ****heads cross post this **** to six different groups?

For the same reason you did ?


Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Mind Melt" <proximo@petitmorte.not> wrote in message
news:be6t1l$rjv$e@pita.alt.net...
: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:03:09 GMT, dodgeboy <68gtx44000@rogers.com>wrote:
:
: >Isn't it nice when Lloyd has a day off work. So he does not sit at his
: >work computer all day trashing Chrysler products.
: >He's the worst kind of Troll!!!!!!!
: >Barry A. Lee
:
: Why do you ****heads cross post this **** to six different groups?

or Thai.. I do it automatically at my place too. Just as well as I clump
around in walking boots most of the time !


Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Nathan Nagel" <njnagel@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F06D0A9.EA31E5AD@earthlink.net...
:
:
: 'nuther Bob wrote:
: >
: > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:57:59 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
: >
: > >'nuther Bob <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
: > >>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:49:30 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
: > >>
: > >>>There isn't any food allowed in my current car, and it isn't that
nice of a
: > >>>car. I'd expect that I'd not let food in my Ferrari as well, if I
had one.
: > >>
: > >>That's like removing your shoes when you enter the house, or not
: > >>allowing eating in the living room.
: > >>
: > >>You gotta kick back a little more.
: > >
: > >I allow eating in the living room. Wood floors wipe easily. The shoes
: > >come off when you come in the house, but that is a normal thing here.
: > >
: > >There is no reason to eat in the car. If you need to eat, stop. Where
is
: > >the problem?
: >
: > No problem, but you have a phobia. Asking folks to remove their
: > shoes when entering the house is the first sign.
: >
: >
: >
: > Bob
:
: Or you might simply have gotten into the habit by having lots of
: Japanese, Korean, etc. friends. I do it more or less automatically now,
: even at my own place.
:
: Besides, that way it's easy to tell when you need to clean the kitchen
: again
:
: nate

I'd rather write portable programs given a choice.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
news:be6nsu$1sgo3$1@ID-147790.news.dfncis.de...
: I don't see how it's unfair at all. Microsoft wrote those functions, and
: tested them, at a considerable cost of money, testing, and whipping
: programmers into working overtime. A considerable amount of blood, sweat,
: and tears went into those APIs. Now a federal judge says that the rest of
: the world gets them essentially for free, before Microsoft decides that it
: is time on its own. No, I don't see how this is fair at all. If you want
: to write Windows programs, you should have to play ball with The Great
Satan
: in Redmond on his own terms.
:
: Earle
: http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
: news:wtvNa.2144$Ds6.14093525@news-text.cableinet.net...
: > Sure, I understand the difference. Microsoft has documentation on how to
: use
: > the dlls, and its opaque to everyone else. Simply knowing its there
isn't
: > good enough to bet your business on. You don't necessarily know what the
: > side effects are, or what the return codes are. Most programmers have
not
: > enough time to go around playing with reverse engineering dlls. These
: facts
: > mean that MS can exploit an unfair advantage by not publishing a better
: API.
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
: > news:qblcgv4hgf7ros45da5sbu1aeg5spi1s3u@4ax.com...
: > : On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
: > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: > :
: > : >"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
: > : >news:non8gvkb42m6r00f3atbm8dogpnmmogjes@4ax.com...
: > : >: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
: > : >: <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
: > : >:
: > : >: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application and
: > : >: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were taking
: > : >: >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The
: > : >: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
: > : >:
: > : >: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep things
secret"
: > : >: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience should
: > : >: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is simple to
: > : >: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is mainly
: > : >: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from
anyone.
: > : >
: > : >Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days experience knows
: > that
: > : >he minimises the impact of change by using the *published* API which
is
: > : >supported.
: > :
: > : Different issue. You are talking about best practices, while the
: > : original point was about keeping things secret. You do understand the
: > : difference, I presume.
: >
: >
:
:

'nuther Bob wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:57:59 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>
>>'nuther Bob <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:49:30 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There isn't any food allowed in my current car, and it isn't that nice of a
>>>>car. I'd expect that I'd not let food in my Ferrari as well, if I had one.
>>>
>>>That's like removing your shoes when you enter the house, or not
>>>allowing eating in the living room.
>>>
>>>You gotta kick back a little more.
>>
>>I allow eating in the living room. Wood floors wipe easily. The shoes
>>come off when you come in the house, but that is a normal thing here.
>>
>>There is no reason to eat in the car. If you need to eat, stop. Where is
>>the problem?
>
> No problem, but you have a phobia. Asking folks to remove their
> shoes when entering the house is the first sign.

In some countries, it is the normal social courtesy. Purely
an estimate, but would be easy to convinced that far more
cultures and sheer numbers of people remove their shoes
than don't.

As for eating in the car, it prevents giving both activities
the attention they deserve. And with children, tends to
create unusual and unwelcome interior fragrances.

DTJ wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
> <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>
>>"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:non8gvkb42m6r00f3atbm8dogpnmmogjes@4ax.com...
>>: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
>>: <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
>>:
>>: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application and
>>: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were taking
>>: >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The
>>: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
>>:
>>: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep things secret"
>>: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience should
>>: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is simple to
>>: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is mainly
>>: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from anyone.
>>
>>Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days experience knows that
>>he minimises the impact of change by using the *published* API which is
>>supported.
>
> Different issue. You are talking about best practices, while the
> original point was about keeping things secret. You do understand the
> difference, I presume.

I dunno if Microsoft still offers source code licenses for
Win/2000 and such, but there were several companies that
had full source code for NT: Siemens, Samsung, Dec, etc.
Also available for Solaris. Don't recall any such arrangement
for MacOS [which means I have actually worked with the
microsoft and solaris source, but don't know of any company
that had Mac code...except IBM].

Of course you would. I would too if I had to write programs. I just cannot
see the moral justification for using the force of law to compel Microsoft
to make things convenient for you though.

Earle

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
newsjDNa.2544$Yp1.16448683@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I'd rather write portable programs given a choice.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
> news:be6nsu$1sgo3$1@ID-147790.news.dfncis.de...
> : I don't see how it's unfair at all. Microsoft wrote those functions,
and
> : tested them, at a considerable cost of money, testing, and whipping
> : programmers into working overtime. A considerable amount of blood,
sweat,
> : and tears went into those APIs. Now a federal judge says that the rest
of
> : the world gets them essentially for free, before Microsoft decides that
it
> : is time on its own. No, I don't see how this is fair at all. If you
want
> : to write Windows programs, you should have to play ball with The Great
> Satan
> : in Redmond on his own terms.
> :
> : Earle
> : http://earleh.tripod.com/w2.html
> :
> : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> : news:wtvNa.2144$Ds6.14093525@news-text.cableinet.net...
> : > Sure, I understand the difference. Microsoft has documentation on how
to
> : use
> : > the dlls, and its opaque to everyone else. Simply knowing its there
> isn't
> : > good enough to bet your business on. You don't necessarily know what
the
> : > side effects are, or what the return codes are. Most programmers have
> not
> : > enough time to go around playing with reverse engineering dlls. These
> : facts
> : > mean that MS can exploit an unfair advantage by not publishing a
better
> : API.
> : >
> : > Dave Milne, Scotland
> : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> : >
> : > "DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
> : > news:qblcgv4hgf7ros45da5sbu1aeg5spi1s3u@4ax.com...
> : > : On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne"
> : > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
> : > :
> : > : >"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
> : > : >news:non8gvkb42m6r00f3atbm8dogpnmmogjes@4ax.com...
> : > : >: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
> : > : >: <not_really@anywhere.com> wrote:
> : > : >:
> : > : >: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application
and
> : > : >: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were taking
> : > : >: >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The
> : > : >: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
> : > : >:
> : > : >: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep things
> secret"
> : > : >: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience
should
> : > : >: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is simple
to
> : > : >: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is
mainly
> : > : >: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from
> anyone.
> : > : >
> : > : >Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days experience
knows
> : > that
> : > : >he minimises the impact of change by using the *published* API
which
> is
> : > : >supported.
> : > :
> : > : Different issue. You are talking about best practices, while the
> : > : original point was about keeping things secret. You do understand
the
> : > : difference, I presume.
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>

"Lon Stowell" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8DDNa.110793$R73.12221@sccrnsc04...
SNIPPY
>
> I dunno if Microsoft still offers source code licenses for
> Win/2000 and such, but there were several companies that
> had full source code for NT: Siemens, Samsung, Dec, etc.
> Also available for Solaris. Don't recall any such arrangement
> for MacOS [which means I have actually worked with the
> microsoft and solaris source, but don't know of any company
> that had Mac code...except IBM].
>
If you want to talk about undocumented APIs MacOS is a good target...

Earle

Earle Horton wrote:

> "Lon Stowell" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8DDNa.110793$R73.12221@sccrnsc04...
> SNIPPY
>>
>> I dunno if Microsoft still offers source code licenses for
>> Win/2000 and such, but there were several companies that
>> had full source code for NT: Siemens, Samsung, Dec, etc.
>> Also available for Solaris. Don't recall any such arrangement
>> for MacOS [which means I have actually worked with the
>> microsoft and solaris source, but don't know of any company
>> that had Mac code...except IBM].
>>
> If you want to talk about undocumented APIs MacOS is a good target...

Yeah, but it is based on unix where you have trace or
truss available, tcpdump or snoop, and if all else
fails, adb, gdb, mdb, and crash. Honestly the reason
why I prefer unix to VM/CMS, MVS, IMS, OS/390, Windows*,
AmigaDOS, or older MacOS... the ability to ask the
!@#!@#$ operating system just what in the heck it
thinks is going on, complete with all arguments, environment
args, system calls, and return values. Other than that,
In My Non Humble Opinion, all operating systems suck
canal water and so do all programming and scripting
languages.