Linux

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]]

Re: Linux

Whatever David, we'll just have to disagree.

MichKa

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Linux

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40cba5b6$1 @news.microsoft .com:
[color=blue]
> Whatever David, we'll just have to disagree.[/color]

Admitting that none of my statements are rebuttable?

Surely, you can do better than that.

If not, it really does suggest that the MS arguments, are, indeed,
nothing but FUD. If someone as knowledgable as yourself cannot
defend the case, it looks undefendable.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Linux

steve@nospam.co m (Steve) wrote in
news:40cbb5c0.4 2044016@news.we stnet.com:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:31:30 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
><dXXXfenton@bw ay.net.invalid> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>steve@nospam. com (Steve) wrote in
>>news:40cb41f5 .12401111@news. westnet.com:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean
>>> that courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned
>>> for many reason.[/color]
>>
>>So, in other words, you will gladly assume that Microsoft is
>>dishonest and feel that you are protected by the ability to sue
>>them.[/color]
>
> No David, nothing in my posts implies that Microsoft is dishonest,
> nor that I feel protected because I can sue Microsoft.[/color]

Then why make the argument that the EULA would not hold up in court?
Either MS is lying by propagating its EULA's or, well, I don't know
what. If the EULA is not legally enforcable, then MS is dishonest in
continuing to claim freedom from liability.
[color=blue]
> Microsoft wrote an EULA that best protects their interest -
> nothing corrupt about that. But like in every business
> agreement, the courts can overturn certain clauses. A classic
> case is the non-compete clause in many employment contracts. If
> such clauses are unreasonable under certain situations, the courts
> can invalid them, even if all parties agreed to the terms.[/color]

But you're admitting that the EULA can't really be overturned until
you go to court, so, basically, what you're saying is:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> . . . you will gladly assume that Microsoft is
>>dishonest and feel that you are protected by the ability to sue
>>them.[/color][/color]

Which is, of course, what I said in the first place -- you appear to
agree 100%.
[color=blue]
> Getting back to the discussion, clearly, if Microsoft knew that
> Access was crashing hard disks running under a recommended Windows
> OS, and Microsoft made no attempt to inform such users, an EULA
> would not provide complete legal liability protection to
> Microsoft. . . .[/color]

So you say. Are you a lawyer? Well, MS employed larged teams of
users to write the EULAs they use, and those explicitly disclaim any
liability for loss of data. Did MS hire incompetent lawyers, or is
it perhaps that case that your understanding of law is perhaps not
quite as authoritative as you'd like us to think?
[color=blue]
> . . . However, if Microsoft new that under Samba, Access
> could crash hard disks, I doubt that they have legal
> responsibility to inform their users; and if the did, clearly not
> the same level of responsibility running under Windows.[/color]

Nice red herring. No one was talking about Microsoft's putative
liability for data lost under Samba.

If you thought that was under discussion, then you're hopelessly
confused and should perhaps go back to the beginning and start over
re-reading the thread.
[color=blue]
> You bring up how difficult it would be to defeat Microsoft in
> court - given their vast resources. So true, but that does not
> nullify the above.[/color]

What "above?" You've demonstrated exactly nothing that contradicts
my original statement.
[color=blue]
> My comfort in using Access under Windows rather than Samba does
> not come from my ability to sue Microsoft and win. It comes from
> the fact that Microsoft has more of a legal and corporate
> responsibility for the proper operation of its applications under
> its recommended operating systems; and they will reflect that in
> their research, development, and of course, testing.[/color]

They certainly have good economic reasons for supporting their own
products. That doesn't mean they will solve every problem
encountered by every end user.

With an open source product, there is at least the possibility of
having someone knowledgable review the source code to identify (and,
hopefully, fix) the bug causing the problem in the first place.

So, liability is not really needed, as you could spend the money
you'd save by not suing Microsoft on hiring a programmer to fix the
underlying bug for your own use.
[color=blue]
><snip>
>[color=green]
>>Why you would count on a lawsuit to hold MS liable in the case of
>>data loss, I can't fathom.
>>
>>It's also a very, very weak argument.[/color]
>
> The only thing I can't fathom is why you have morphed this
> discussion from legal responsibility to actually winning a
> lawsuit. . . .[/color]

Michael brought up liability, and when called on it, changed the
subject to support.

You're the one who brought up lawsuits by claiming that MS's EULA is
unenforceable.

All I said was that I read the EULA and it said MS will not admit
liability. That tells me that there's really not much difference on
the subject of liability between SAMBA, where there is really no one
to hold liable, and MS, where the owner of the product explicitly
declaims any liability for damage to your data.
[color=blue]
> . . . Just because you have legal responsibility to perform
> in a certain way, does not mean that you will be successfully sued
> or convicted if you violate such responsbility.[/color]

I think a company that explicitly tries to excuse itself from
liability for damage to your data is not going to be very happy to
be asked to be liable.

If you data is damaged because of bugs in someone else's software,
you're just out of luck. If it were not so, none of us would be able
to afford shrink-wrapped software. Indeed, there would probably be
no shrink-wrapped software at all.

And, just to re-iterate: I would never recommend storing Jet data on
a Samba server, for all the reasons that Michael has outlined.

But in regards to comparative liability of Microsoft and Samba,
there is no practical difference -- there is zero liability in both
cases.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]]

Re: Linux

No David, I am just sick of arguing with you.

I can defend any case I need to, and as someone who did consulting work with
Access since 2.0, I can tell you for fact that I NEVER believed thast
unsupported platforms are a productive line of development, and have in fact
walked away from lucrative contacts that insisted on unsupported platforms.
This is independent of my current employment because I do not consult any
more. You one respected me, you could at least show a shred of that respect
and not make accusations that have no basis in reality.

Clearly you are not interested in the Microsoft OS (Windows) or its Office
database app (Access) and believe that others can do better. I am not a
cheerleader of either and hav no interest in playing verbal ping pong with
someone who will consider me a FUD-spreading apologist when he knows that
this is really not true (or at least once did).


--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.


"David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns95079B1 08EA58dfentonbw aynetinvali@24. 168.128.74...[color=blue]
> "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
> wrote in news:40cba5b6$1 @news.microsoft .com:
>[color=green]
> > Whatever David, we'll just have to disagree.[/color]
>
> Admitting that none of my statements are rebuttable?
>
> Surely, you can do better than that.
>
> If not, it really does suggest that the MS arguments, are, indeed,
> nothing but FUD. If someone as knowledgable as yourself cannot
> defend the case, it looks undefendable.
>
> --
> David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
> dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc[/color]

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]]

Re: Linux

DAVID,

Please end this thread. It is serving no useful purpose whatsoever.

Thank you,

MichKa

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Linux

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40ccb103$1 @news.microsoft .com:

[]

It seems clear that perhaps you once were able to speak reliably and
were not afraid to say when MS was making mistakes and speaking
untruthfully, but, sadly, that seems to no longer be the case.

Your effort to put words in my mouth shows that you're not really
interested in an honest discussion at this point, so I won't bother
to address the outrageous assertions in what you posted. It's this
inability to even comprehend what others are saying that is highly
characteristic of Microsoft's entire problem with the topic of Open
Source software -- they just shut their ears and ignore that real
people who've had real success with it, and better success than
they've had with Microsoft's software.

You sure are a team player.

So be it.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Linux

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40ccb14b@n ews.microsoft.c om:
[color=blue]
> Please end this thread. It is serving no useful purpose
> whatsoever.[/color]

???

I wasn't addressing you, so why should you care?

Shouldn't the determination of usefulness be up to the other people
participating in the discussion? If Steve wants to reply, he can,
and has every right to do so. If he's not interested, then the
thread will end.

But I don't see what is accomplished by your announcing that you
find no value to the discussion.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]]

Re: Linux

I never thought I would have to add you of all people to my killfile David,
but as you said, so be it.

MichKa

[Steve Jorgensen]

Re: Linux

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:23:01 -0700, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]"
<michkap@online .microsoft.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I never thought I would have to add you of all people to my killfile David,
>but as you said, so be it.
>
>MichKa
>[/color]

Oh, give me a break.

You've earned my great respect over the years, and you haven't lost it, but I
really think David's the one being pragmatic here, and you're trying not to
look past your nose. I also think if you were to killfile David, some great
meaningful dialogs in the future will be sadly lost to CDMA.

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]]

Re: Linux

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam. nospam> wrote...
[color=blue]
> Oh, give me a break.[/color]

Okay.
[color=blue]
> You've earned my great respect over the years, and you haven't lost it,[/color]
but I[color=blue]
> really think David's the one being pragmatic here, and you're trying not[/color]
to[color=blue]
> look past your nose. I also think if you were to killfile David, some[/color]
great[color=blue]
> meaningful dialogs in the future will be sadly lost to CDMA.[/color]

Pragmatic does not cover the accusation he made (baiting would be more like
it?). And meaningful dialogs cannot come out of situations where one person
thinks that poorly of another.

If you do not want to respect that, then you are obviously not required to
(nor is he). But its the same essential reason I killfile Mellon identities
whenever they reveal themselves -- if I do not sense mutual respect then
there is no point with the interaction. Which is not to say that Mellon and
David have anything in common, I am pretty sure they don't other than the
lack of mutual respect thing....

MichKa

[Steve Jorgensen]

Re: Linux

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:20:49 -0700, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]"
<michkap@online .microsoft.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Hmmm.... interesting. Now all one needs is a scenario where it makes sense
>to use it? :-)[/color]

Actually, I have one client. They have about 6 concurrent users on an Access
back-end, and to avoid the cost and hassle of buying and updating a server
edition OS, they host an Access back-end on a Desktop Edition box. All they
use this system for is file sharing, and they share a lot of files besides the
Access back-end.

Unfortunately, they also have multiple shares on the machine (for good
reason), and the way Windows counts concurrent open shares is such that if one
client accesses both shares, thats 2 of the maximum available 10. The company
has been about the same size for decades, so there's no preducted growth to
justify the server OS beyond the current intermittent sharing isssues.

If they were to use Samba on the back-end, they would not even have to license
the Desktop Edition of Windows for that server, and they would not have the 10
client/share limit to contend with. Now, is that the right answer for them?
it's at least worth trying it out to see if it will work, I would think.

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Linux

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40ccf623$1 @news.microsoft .com:
[color=blue]
> "Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam. nospam> wrote...[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> You've earned my great respect over the years, and you haven't
>> lost it,[/color]
> but I[color=green]
>> really think David's the one being pragmatic here, and you're
>> trying not[/color]
> to[color=green]
>> look past your nose. I also think if you were to killfile David,
>> some[/color]
> great[color=green]
>> meaningful dialogs in the future will be sadly lost to CDMA.[/color]
>
> Pragmatic does not cover the accusation he made (baiting would be
> more like it?). And meaningful dialogs cannot come out of
> situations where one person thinks that poorly of another.[/color]

It's precisely because I *don't* think poorly of you that I hold you
to a higher standard of honesty than I believe you have demonstrated
in the discussion of liability, most of which you have actually
avoided after I pointed out the lack of a real distinction.

You also seem to have ignored the fact that on the salient point,
whether you should store Jet data on a Samba server, we actually are
fully in agreement.

I was just nitpicking one of your arguments against Samba.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Steve]

Re: Linux

Second the motion,

Steven

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:07:47 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
>wrote in news:40ccb14b@n ews.microsoft.c om:
>[color=green]
>> Please end this thread. It is serving no useful purpose
>> whatsoever.[/color]
>
>???
>
>I wasn't addressing you, so why should you care?
>
>Shouldn't the determination of usefulness be up to the other people
>participatin g in the discussion? If Steve wants to reply, he can,
>and has every right to do so. If he's not interested, then the
>thread will end.
>
>But I don't see what is accomplished by your announcing that you
>find no value to the discussion.
>
>--
>David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
>dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc[/color]