Whare are we to make of this?

"Microsoft Corp. has reached a collaboration deal with Xandros Inc., a
distributor of the Linux operating system [...]. The agreement with
Xandros, to be announced Monday, includes a promise by Microsoft to
refrain from pursuing patent claims against users of Xandros software.
[...]"

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...xandros04.html

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...XandrosPR.mspx


Gill Bates

"Gill Bates" illuminated the devil's arse by typing:

> Whare are we to make of this?

<snip>

Andreas Typaldos has taken too much skag.

He believes that it's a "mixed fomat world" and to co-exist is the
future of Xandros.

Good skag that.......

--
Moog

"I, Juan Montero, will help you. Let us mount our horses and begin our
Quest for trolls..."

Gill Bates wrote:
> Whare are we to make of this?
>
> "Microsoft Corp. has reached a collaboration deal with Xandros Inc., a
> distributor of the Linux operating system [...]. The agreement with
> Xandros, to be announced Monday, includes a promise by Microsoft to
> refrain from pursuing patent claims against users of Xandros software.
> [...]"
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...xandros04.html
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...XandrosPR.mspx
>
>
> Gill Bates

I read that the deal includes 'helping' ms with open office
--
ac

After takin' a swig o' grog, ac belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Gill Bates wrote:
>> Whare are we to make of this?
>>
>> "Microsoft Corp. has reached a collaboration deal with Xandros Inc., a
>> distributor of the Linux operating system [...]. The agreement with
>> Xandros, to be announced Monday, includes a promise by Microsoft to
>> refrain from pursuing patent claims against users of Xandros software.
>> [...]"
>>
>> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...xandros04.html
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...XandrosPR.mspx
>>
>>
>> Gill Bates
>
> I read that the deal includes 'helping' ms with open office

Microsoft is a bunch of double-dealing four-flushers. I'm sure Novell
is happy to have the competition for Microsoft's attention.

As for Xandros, the following apply to them:

1. They were in dire straits.

2. They are part of the Novell/Caldera/Corel/SCO/Microsoft cabal
that killed WordPerfect and Corel Linux.

Looks like SuSE and Xandros are next.

Most of 'em from Utah, amazingly enough. They all /hate/ each
other, yet they're always in bed together for a FUD'ing good time.

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.

--
Tux rox!

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:31:55 +0200, Gill Bates wrote:

> Whare are we to make of this?

I'd guess... Xandros just got a huge check written to them from Microsoft
through a shadow company, to keep it from public view, to help with MS's
anti-open source PR campaign.

Gill Bates wrote:

> Whare are we to make of this?
>
> "Microsoft Corp. has reached a collaboration deal with Xandros Inc., a
> distributor of the Linux operating system [...]. The agreement with
> Xandros, to be announced Monday, includes a promise by Microsoft to
> refrain from pursuing patent claims against users of Xandros software.
> [...]"
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...xandros04.html
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...XandrosPR.mspx
>
>
> Gill Bates

Xandros who's big thing was putting out Linux small office servers that have
a familiar look, feel and tools for those coming from MS servers.

Novell, who's particular push was, in the view of myself and no doubt many
others too, the best server OS we have ever had as well as the most likely
of the desktops (SLED) that could take desks enmass from MS.

Pretty good plan by MS I would say, ignore the bulk of Linux, it's enough to
cripple those most likely to damage to MS. Buy themselves time to get a
working Vista out there and then what with the final nasty MS has on Vista,
then Linux growth is pretty much scuppered for a time.

The final nasty? What could that be? (I hear you ask). Well I have a Vista
laptop here on my desk that was the first of the new machines I had to buy
for here since Vista came out. Did you know that it comes with an altered
(in MS words 'improved' tcp? It can find approximately half of my network
but can not log in. Basically it can do everything that involves other
packet types, initiated from the DHCP server, internet traffic, other
network protocols, but it can not do anything at all that has to do with
the traffic from my UNIX and Linux servers.

Online the work around for this is to load the XP packet managers, I haven't
got as far as loading those yet.

But the point is that this Vista out of the box is not friendly to standard
tcp network traffic. It is Vista Ultimate, which means it should do
everything, so don't MS folk come on here saying I have the wrong version.

I'm pissed off because I needed a quick machine that I could send to a rep
today, now I'm losing time, first in finding that MS is broken in this
respect and second because I have to make sure this switch to XP tcp
manager is actually going to work.

After takin' a swig o' grog, BearItAll belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Pretty good plan by MS I would say, ignore the bulk of Linux, it's enough to
> cripple those most likely to damage to MS. Buy themselves time to get a
> working Vista out there and then what with the final nasty MS has on Vista,
> then Linux growth is pretty much scuppered for a time.
>
> The final nasty? What could that be? (I hear you ask). Well I have a Vista
> laptop here on my desk that was the first of the new machines I had to buy
> for here since Vista came out. Did you know that it comes with an altered
> (in MS words 'improved' tcp? It can find approximately half of my network
> but can not log in. Basically it can do everything that involves other
> packet types, initiated from the DHCP server, internet traffic, other
> network protocols, but it can not do anything at all that has to do with
> the traffic from my UNIX and Linux servers.
>
> Online the work around for this is to load the XP packet managers, I haven't
> got as far as loading those yet.
>
> But the point is that this Vista out of the box is not friendly to standard
> tcp network traffic. It is Vista Ultimate, which means it should do
> everything, so don't MS folk come on here saying I have the wrong version.
>
> I'm pissed off because I needed a quick machine that I could send to a rep
> today, now I'm losing time, first in finding that MS is broken in this
> respect and second because I have to make sure this switch to XP tcp
> manager is actually going to work.

It's not just Linux that gets boggled. How about your hardware
firewalls?

http://arstechnica.com/journals/micr...f-the-firewall

By default, the Receive Window Auto-Tuning feature in Windows
Vista uses a Window Scaling factor of 8 for non-HTTP
connections. This issue does not occur when you try to make an
HTTP connection.

(I guess this means that downloading over FTP is a lot faster
than downloading over HTTP with Vista.)

And lo and behold: many firewalls, including expensive,
commercial ones, don't look at the window scale option. When
they find that the resulting TCP behavior deviates from the
original specification, they filter the packets involved.
According to the article, (some) products from the following
vendors can be problematic: NetApp, Cisco, Sonicwall, and
Checkpoint. I do remember seeing problems with Linux/UNIX
firewalling packages as well, though. See the article for
workarounds on Vista. On Linux and BSD, you may have to look for
related sysctl settings if you experience this problem.

--
Tux rox!

BearItAll wrote:
> I'm pissed off because I needed a quick machine that I could send
> to a rep today, now I'm losing time, first in finding that MS is
> broken in this respect and second because I have to make sure this
> switch to XP tcp manager is actually going to work.

Heck. :/

And here I thought iTunes sucked donkey dick.
Obviously I didn't know dick. ;)

Alvin in AZ

Linonut wrote:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, BearItAll belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Pretty good plan by MS I would say, ignore the bulk of Linux, it's enough
>> to cripple those most likely to damage to MS. Buy themselves time to get
>> a working Vista out there and then what with the final nasty MS has on
>> Vista, then Linux growth is pretty much scuppered for a time.
>>
>> The final nasty? What could that be? (I hear you ask). Well I have a
>> Vista laptop here on my desk that was the first of the new machines I had
>> to buy for here since Vista came out. Did you know that it comes with an
>> altered (in MS words 'improved' tcp? It can find approximately half of my
>> network but can not log in. Basically it can do everything that involves
>> other packet types, initiated from the DHCP server, internet traffic,
>> other network protocols, but it can not do anything at all that has to do
>> with the traffic from my UNIX and Linux servers.
>>
>> Online the work around for this is to load the XP packet managers, I
>> haven't got as far as loading those yet.
>>
>> But the point is that this Vista out of the box is not friendly to
>> standard tcp network traffic. It is Vista Ultimate, which means it should
>> do everything, so don't MS folk come on here saying I have the wrong
>> version.
>>
>> I'm pissed off because I needed a quick machine that I could send to a
>> rep today, now I'm losing time, first in finding that MS is broken in
>> this respect and second because I have to make sure this switch to XP tcp
>> manager is actually going to work.
>
> It's not just Linux that gets boggled. How about your hardware
> firewalls?
>
>
http://arstechnica.com/journals/micr...f-the-firewall
>
> By default, the Receive Window Auto-Tuning feature in Windows
> Vista uses a Window Scaling factor of 8 for non-HTTP
> connections. This issue does not occur when you try to make an
> HTTP connection.
>
> (I guess this means that downloading over FTP is a lot faster
> than downloading over HTTP with Vista.)
>
> And lo and behold: many firewalls, including expensive,
> commercial ones, don't look at the window scale option. When
> they find that the resulting TCP behavior deviates from the
> original specification, they filter the packets involved.
> According to the article, (some) products from the following
> vendors can be problematic: NetApp, Cisco, Sonicwall, and
> Checkpoint. I do remember seeing problems with Linux/UNIX
> firewalling packages as well, though. See the article for
> workarounds on Vista. On Linux and BSD, you may have to look for
> related sysctl settings if you experience this problem.
>

That sounds very right, I hadn't come across this in my search. I can't
think of an easy way around it.

The fix is talking of allowing all tcp ip traffic, that takes away the
fundamental security areas of tcp ip.


Last night I tried to put XP on the machine I have here, but there is some
change in the area of the drives too, the XP installer said it doesn't have
any drives, so I put my trusty Live Linux in to format them for it, but it
too could not find any hard drives on the laptop.

MS are doing battle against Linux on many fronts, taking key players such as
Novell and anyone else willing to jump onboard with them, it seems that
they are doing battle in the area of Bios too and Gateway Computers are
happy to go along with it too. I can apparently get a bios flash so that I
can format the drives for a non-Vista system, but after a search I didn't
come up with that flash.