OT Freeware Partition software

BillW50 wrote:
Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST):
On Nov 26, 11:53 am, BillW50 wrote:
John wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:54 -0500:

On Nov 24, 7:30 am, Ben Myers wrote:
With the exception of Microsoft, of course, and the printer/scanner
manufacturers, hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD,
nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about
releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that
little or
no reverse engineering is needed for members of the Linux crowd to
design device drivers. Some hardware manufacturers even offer
their own
Linux device drivers, open sourced, of course.
The reverse engineering for Linux comes in when it is time to design
software to be compatible with Microsoft's standards imposed by
monopoly. You will likely not find a technical spec from
Microsoft for
NTFS, for example, but you will find Linux implementations of
software
to do all operations on NTFS partitions, directories and files.
HP, Epson, Canon, and Lexmark (and any other printer manufacturer)
are
also especially obtuse about their printer control languages and
APIs to
manage printers/scanners. So Linux engineers have to reverse
engineer
whatever support is needed. The exception here is PostScript,
which is
the only printer control language to use in a mixed Linux-Windows
environment... Ben Myers
Thanks for the clarification Ben. - Zack
Yes Ben Thank You. I usually don't post but this has gone way out of
hand. in my 42 years in and around computers I find that something
that
should have been informative and easy to handle ended up in this
fashion. Your information that I have read from various groups that I
visit and pay attention to show me that you give out and explain that
info to all that ask. Keep up the good work.
John... there is a lot of fear, uncertainly, and deception (FUD) in
Ben's post. Ben makes it sound like Microsoft is only not forthcoming
"about releasing detailed specifications". And you John, bought it!
Hook, line, and sinker.

When Ben is saying hey "hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel,
AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming
about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that
little or no reverse engineering is needed..." Ben is assuming people
are not so bright and will buy into his FUD.

What Ben wasn't telling you is what do all of them have in common? That
is right! They all are hardware manufactures with the exception of
Microsoft. And what Ben foolishly wants everybody to believe if hardware
manufactures do it so should Microsoft, who sells software.

What Ben also doesn't tell you is that it is in the hardware
manufacturer's best interest to provide programmers the tools to use
their hardware. If they don't, the hardware is totally useless without
software to run on them.

And no, hardware manufactures are not forth coming when it comes to
reverse engineering of their hardware. They only provide enough for the
programmers to write software for it. Nothing useful for us hardware
engineers at all. For example, I have been tying for months to learn
more about Asus PCI-e miniport which they call Flash_Con. I also have
been trying to get specs on SSD. Sorry but nobody is forthcoming about
specs of their hardware like what Ben wants people to believe.

So no, Microsoft isn't the only one who does this. Virtually every for
profit company does exactly the very same thing. This is called trade
secrets. Ben wants everybody to believe that only Microsoft should
release all of its trade secrets and nobody else should, well besides
printer manufactures.

Why would Ben want this? Easy, Ben doesn't like Microsoft. I don't have
much love for them either. But unlike Ben, I believe in telling the
truth and I refuse to use fear, uncertainly, and deception to impress
others.

Now Ben would like to see Microsoft get toppled. And so would I.
Although here is where the similarity ends. Ben's kind tries to do this
through dishonest means. And I believe this is exactly the same foes
that can't win against Microsoft. As Microsoft knows all the tricks too
well and has all the money, so people like Ben will always fail.
Microsoft learned from the best, IBM remember? And history shows that I
am indeed on the right track.

Like what I have been saying for many years, the only way to topple
Microsoft is by non-evil, non-greedy, and non-dumb people. This is
something Microsoft has no defenses against.

And when Ben talks about reverse engineering Microsoft software, what
Ben is really talking about is stealing. As reverse engineering is an
illegal activity mentioned in virtually all software license agreements.
Since Ben has shown he uses dishonesty tactics, I am not surprised he
also condoms stealing as well. He also seems to believe this is
his/their right as well. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever. As that
is like a car thief believes it is his right for me to leave the doors
unlocked and the keys left in the ignition. Plus a full tank of gas to
boot.

Ben and others will never have a chance of winning in an intellect
conversation if they continue to use fear, uncertainly, and deception.
Only when they become honest with themselves and others will they ever
have a chance.

Alright, I must interfere.

Be my guest.

Look Bill: you bring up a lot of good statements
here (while they can be debated, I like them); but,
you did not have to mention any one person at all,
even if you are responding to someone's personal
view. (And you most definitely did not have to be
offensive.) Mind you, this is even if you were right,
with everything you are saying -- including those
personal assessments. (Which I don't see how
you would know ... by reading someone's posts?)

I disagree. Conflict of interest is indeed very important (as it changes
everything). And if this isn't talked about, the truth will never come
out. And conflict of interests are personal. It can't be any other way.

Make you points, by all means, and do not get
personal. (In public. Do whatever you want to do
in private.) Please stay respectful, and resist any
urge to assess people who you are conversing,
arguing with. For one thing, I take your arguments
way more seriously if they are about, well what is
talked about, and not about people involved. And
honestly, if MS is being discussed, I couldn't care
less about your attempted psychological profiling.
(This is even if you actually knew the person you
are talking about.)

I do respect Ben and I am hoping that Ben will respond in a highly
intelligent matter. But so far, Ben refuses to do so. Like I mentioned
before, Ben's refusals will be seen to many as an act of guilt. And as I
have mentioned a lot already, it isn't about Ben per se, but about
people who thinks like Ben.

Put differently: Ben has, very nicely, indicated his
opinion on certain matters; leave him alone, damn
it! Discuss the opinion, tear it into shreds, if you so
wish. Otherwise you are being simply personally
offensive, even if you were right. And you *were*
very offensive -- even to me, by making me read
unconstrained derogatory personal assessments
in a thread about computers.

Ben has been very nice? Slandering others isn't nice at all IMHO. And
why I spoke up in the first place. This is exactly what Netscape did to
Microsoft and started the whole MS bashing stuff. And Netscape was very
bold about it as well. Maybe to you it is nice, but not to me. Microsoft
also didn't take it very well either and crushed Netscape with the same
programming force which Netscape claimed Microsoft didn't have.

The worse thing somebody could do to somebody else is to make false
claims about them. And Ben is doing a very exact thing. But Ben also
knows that Microsoft won't bother to defend themselves here so he is
free to slander them all he wants too.

The difference between Ben and I, is I allow Ben to defend himself. Ben
on the other hand doesn't allow the one whom he is slandering to defend
themselves. So I must speak up. See the difference?

Do you know what I am talking about?

Yes, Ben can slander anybody he wants to and I am not allowed to say the
truth. And you find my comments offensive and I find Ben's comments
offense. And the difference is I don't have the freedom to be offend,
but you two do.

Bill in reply to your post to me. I have been around since LIBERATOR so
I am not a neophyte. I have prob. forgot more about what you are
talking about than you presently know. M$ is only one end of many that
are in the field. Those that like them are fine, those that don't like
them are fine also. we all have our OHO.

On Nov 26, 2:19*pm, BillW50 wrote:
Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST):



On Nov 26, 11:53 am, BillW50 wrote:
John wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:54 -0500:

On Nov 24, 7:30 am, Ben Myers wrote:
With the exception of Microsoft, of course, and the printer/scanner
manufacturers, hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD,
nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about
releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that little or
no reverse engineering is needed for members of the Linux crowd to
design device drivers. *Some hardware manufacturers even offer their own
Linux device drivers, open sourced, of course.
The reverse engineering for Linux comes in when it is time to design
software to be compatible with Microsoft's standards imposed by
monopoly. *You will likely not find a technical spec from Microsoft for
NTFS, for example, but you will find Linux implementations of software
to do all operations on NTFS partitions, directories and files.
HP, Epson, Canon, and Lexmark (and any other printer manufacturer) are
also especially obtuse about their printer control languages and APIs to
manage printers/scanners. *So Linux engineers have to reverse engineer
whatever support is needed. *The exception here is PostScript, which is
the only printer control language to use in a mixed Linux-Windows
environment... Ben Myers
Thanks for the clarification Ben. - Zack
Yes Ben Thank You. *I usually don't post but this has gone way out of
hand. *in my 42 years in and around computers I find that something that
should have been informative and easy to handle ended up in this
fashion. *Your information that I have read from various groups that I
visit and pay attention to show me that you give out and explain that
info to all that ask. *Keep up the good work.
John... there is a lot of fear, uncertainly, and deception (FUD) in
Ben's post. Ben makes it sound like Microsoft is only not forthcoming
"about releasing detailed specifications". And you John, bought it!
Hook, line, and sinker.

When Ben is saying hey "hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel,
AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming
about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that
little or no reverse engineering is needed..." Ben is assuming people
are not so bright and will buy into his FUD.

What Ben wasn't telling you is what do all of them have in common? That
is right! They all are hardware manufactures with the exception of
Microsoft. And what Ben foolishly wants everybody to believe if hardware
manufactures do it so should Microsoft, who sells software.

What Ben also doesn't tell you is that it is in the hardware
manufacturer's best interest to provide programmers the tools to use
their hardware. If they don't, the hardware is totally useless without
software to run on them.

And no, hardware manufactures are not forth coming when it comes to
reverse engineering of their hardware. They only provide enough for the
programmers to write software for it. Nothing useful for us hardware
engineers at all. For example, I have been tying for months to learn
more about Asus PCI-e miniport which they call Flash_Con. I also have
been trying to get specs on SSD. Sorry but nobody is forthcoming about
specs of their hardware like what Ben wants people to believe.

So no, Microsoft isn't the only one who does this. Virtually every for
profit company does exactly the very same thing. This is called trade
secrets. Ben wants everybody to believe that only Microsoft should
release all of its trade secrets and nobody else should, well besides
printer manufactures.

Why would Ben want this? Easy, Ben doesn't like Microsoft. I don't have
much love for them either. But unlike Ben, I believe in telling the
truth and I refuse to use fear, uncertainly, and deception to impress
others.

Now Ben would like to see Microsoft get toppled. And so would I.
Although here is where the similarity ends. Ben's kind tries to do this
through dishonest means. And I believe this is exactly the same foes
that can't win against Microsoft. As Microsoft knows all the tricks too
well and has all the money, so people like Ben will always fail.
Microsoft learned from the best, IBM remember? And history shows that I
am indeed on the right track.

Like what I have been saying for many years, the only way to topple
Microsoft is by non-evil, non-greedy, and non-dumb people. This is
something Microsoft has no defenses against.

And when Ben talks about reverse engineering Microsoft software, what
Ben is really talking about is stealing. As reverse engineering is an
illegal activity mentioned in virtually all software license agreements.
Since Ben has shown he uses dishonesty tactics, I am not surprised he
also condoms stealing as well. He also seems to believe this is
his/their right as well. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever. As that
is like a car thief believes it is his right for me to leave the doors
unlocked and the keys left in the ignition. Plus a full tank of gas to
boot.

Ben and others will never have a chance of winning in an intellect
conversation if they continue to use fear, uncertainly, and deception.
Only when they become honest with themselves and others will they ever
have a chance.

Alright, I must interfere.

Be my guest.

Look Bill: you bring up a lot of good statements
here (while they can be debated, I like them); but,
you did not have to mention any one person at all,
even if you are responding to someone's personal
view. *(And you most definitely did not have to be
offensive.) Mind you, this is even if you were right,
with everything you are saying -- including those
personal assessments. *(Which I don't see how
you would know ... by reading someone's posts?)

I disagree. Conflict of interest is indeed very important (as it changes
everything). And if this isn't talked about, the truth will never come
out. And conflict of interests are personal. It can't be any other way.

Make you points, by all means, and do not get
personal. (In public. *Do whatever you want to do
in private.) Please stay respectful, and resist any
urge to assess people who you are conversing,
arguing with. For one thing, I take your arguments
way more seriously if they are about, well what is
talked about, and not about people involved. And
honestly, if MS is being discussed, I couldn't care
less about your attempted psychological profiling.
(This is even if you actually knew the person you
are talking about.)

I do respect Ben and I am hoping that Ben will respond in a highly
intelligent matter. But so far, Ben refuses to do so. Like I mentioned
before, Ben's refusals will be seen to many as an act of guilt. And as I
have mentioned a lot already, it isn't about Ben per se, but about
people who thinks like Ben.

Put differently: Ben has, very nicely, indicated his
opinion on certain matters; leave him alone, damn
it! Discuss the opinion, tear it into shreds, if you so
wish. Otherwise you are being simply personally
offensive, even if you were right. *And you *were*
very offensive -- even to me, by making me read
unconstrained derogatory personal assessments
in a thread about computers.

Ben has been very nice? Slandering others isn't nice at all IMHO. And
why I spoke up in the first place. This is exactly what Netscape did to
Microsoft and started the whole MS bashing stuff. And Netscape was very
bold about it as well. Maybe to you it is nice, but not to me. Microsoft
also didn't take it very well either and crushed Netscape with the same
programming force which Netscape claimed Microsoft didn't have.

The worse thing somebody could do to somebody else is to make false
claims about them. And Ben is doing a very exact thing. But Ben also
knows that Microsoft won't bother to defend themselves here so he is
free to slander them all he wants too.

The difference between Ben and I, is I allow Ben to defend himself. Ben
on the other hand doesn't allow the one whom he is slandering to defend
themselves. So I must speak up. See the difference?

Do you know what I am talking about?

Yes, Ben can slander anybody he wants to and I am not allowed to say the
truth. And you find my comments offensive and I find Ben's comments
offense. And the difference is I don't have the freedom to be offend,
but you two do.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 8GB 1GB SoDIMM Adata 16GB
Windows XP SP2 and Xandros Linux

I understand now: you find MS offended, by Ben's
statements, and you are defending them. (Correct?
I honestly did not see that.) Well, that's something
different altogether.

I surely can't spend time on this now, but I will in
fact think about it. It is an interesting proposition,
to me, that a harsh opinion on a huge corporation
is received as offensive. (Personally offensive, I'd
add, since you respond with statements that are
very personal, and possibly quite offensive. And
you so insist on them.)

I mean that I find it interesting, this was not meant
to be a roundabout way of dismissing it. I do still
maintain that your charges for Ben were not at all
appropriate for a forum like this one. But I'll think
about where you may be coming from. But then
again, maybe we wish to move this discussion
*outside of this forum.*

I would offer one thought to you: this isn't about
the truth, which you invoke so often; it would be
rather about other things, but I am not sure which.
(Again -- this is not meant to be dismissive.)

On Nov 26, 2:19*pm, BillW50 wrote:
Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST):



On Nov 26, 11:53 am, BillW50 wrote:
John wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:54 -0500:

On Nov 24, 7:30 am, Ben Myers wrote:
With the exception of Microsoft, of course, and the printer/scanner
manufacturers, hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD,
nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about
releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that little or
no reverse engineering is needed for members of the Linux crowd to
design device drivers. *Some hardware manufacturers even offer their own
Linux device drivers, open sourced, of course.
The reverse engineering for Linux comes in when it is time to design
software to be compatible with Microsoft's standards imposed by
monopoly. *You will likely not find a technical spec from Microsoft for
NTFS, for example, but you will find Linux implementations of software
to do all operations on NTFS partitions, directories and files.
HP, Epson, Canon, and Lexmark (and any other printer manufacturer) are
also especially obtuse about their printer control languages and APIs to
manage printers/scanners. *So Linux engineers have to reverse engineer
whatever support is needed. *The exception here is PostScript, which is
the only printer control language to use in a mixed Linux-Windows
environment... Ben Myers
Thanks for the clarification Ben. - Zack
Yes Ben Thank You. *I usually don't post but this has gone way out of
hand. *in my 42 years in and around computers I find that something that
should have been informative and easy to handle ended up in this
fashion. *Your information that I have read from various groups that I
visit and pay attention to show me that you give out and explain that
info to all that ask. *Keep up the good work.
John... there is a lot of fear, uncertainly, and deception (FUD) in
Ben's post. Ben makes it sound like Microsoft is only not forthcoming
"about releasing detailed specifications". And you John, bought it!
Hook, line, and sinker.

When Ben is saying hey "hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel,
AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming
about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that
little or no reverse engineering is needed..." Ben is assuming people
are not so bright and will buy into his FUD.

What Ben wasn't telling you is what do all of them have in common? That
is right! They all are hardware manufactures with the exception of
Microsoft. And what Ben foolishly wants everybody to believe if hardware
manufactures do it so should Microsoft, who sells software.

What Ben also doesn't tell you is that it is in the hardware
manufacturer's best interest to provide programmers the tools to use
their hardware. If they don't, the hardware is totally useless without
software to run on them.

And no, hardware manufactures are not forth coming when it comes to
reverse engineering of their hardware. They only provide enough for the
programmers to write software for it. Nothing useful for us hardware
engineers at all. For example, I have been tying for months to learn
more about Asus PCI-e miniport which they call Flash_Con. I also have
been trying to get specs on SSD. Sorry but nobody is forthcoming about
specs of their hardware like what Ben wants people to believe.

So no, Microsoft isn't the only one who does this. Virtually every for
profit company does exactly the very same thing. This is called trade
secrets. Ben wants everybody to believe that only Microsoft should
release all of its trade secrets and nobody else should, well besides
printer manufactures.

Why would Ben want this? Easy, Ben doesn't like Microsoft. I don't have
much love for them either. But unlike Ben, I believe in telling the
truth and I refuse to use fear, uncertainly, and deception to impress
others.

Now Ben would like to see Microsoft get toppled. And so would I.
Although here is where the similarity ends. Ben's kind tries to do this
through dishonest means. And I believe this is exactly the same foes
that can't win against Microsoft. As Microsoft knows all the tricks too
well and has all the money, so people like Ben will always fail.
Microsoft learned from the best, IBM remember? And history shows that I
am indeed on the right track.

Like what I have been saying for many years, the only way to topple
Microsoft is by non-evil, non-greedy, and non-dumb people. This is
something Microsoft has no defenses against.

And when Ben talks about reverse engineering Microsoft software, what
Ben is really talking about is stealing. As reverse engineering is an
illegal activity mentioned in virtually all software license agreements.
Since Ben has shown he uses dishonesty tactics, I am not surprised he
also condoms stealing as well. He also seems to believe this is
his/their right as well. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever. As that
is like a car thief believes it is his right for me to leave the doors
unlocked and the keys left in the ignition. Plus a full tank of gas to
boot.

Ben and others will never have a chance of winning in an intellect
conversation if they continue to use fear, uncertainly, and deception.
Only when they become honest with themselves and others will they ever
have a chance.

Alright, I must interfere.

Be my guest.

Look Bill: you bring up a lot of good statements
here (while they can be debated, I like them); but,
you did not have to mention any one person at all,
even if you are responding to someone's personal
view. *(And you most definitely did not have to be
offensive.) Mind you, this is even if you were right,
with everything you are saying -- including those
personal assessments. *(Which I don't see how
you would know ... by reading someone's posts?)

I disagree. Conflict of interest is indeed very important (as it changes
everything). And if this isn't talked about, the truth will never come
out. And conflict of interests are personal. It can't be any other way.

Make you points, by all means, and do not get
personal. (In public. *Do whatever you want to do
in private.) Please stay respectful, and resist any
urge to assess people who you are conversing,
arguing with. For one thing, I take your arguments
way more seriously if they are about, well what is
talked about, and not about people involved. And
honestly, if MS is being discussed, I couldn't care
less about your attempted psychological profiling.
(This is even if you actually knew the person you
are talking about.)

I do respect Ben and I am hoping that Ben will respond in a highly
intelligent matter. But so far, Ben refuses to do so. Like I mentioned
before, Ben's refusals will be seen to many as an act of guilt. And as I
have mentioned a lot already, it isn't about Ben per se, but about
people who thinks like Ben.

Put differently: Ben has, very nicely, indicated his
opinion on certain matters; leave him alone, damn
it! Discuss the opinion, tear it into shreds, if you so
wish. Otherwise you are being simply personally
offensive, even if you were right. *And you *were*
very offensive -- even to me, by making me read
unconstrained derogatory personal assessments
in a thread about computers.

Ben has been very nice? Slandering others isn't nice at all IMHO. And
why I spoke up in the first place. This is exactly what Netscape did to
Microsoft and started the whole MS bashing stuff. And Netscape was very
bold about it as well. Maybe to you it is nice, but not to me. Microsoft
also didn't take it very well either and crushed Netscape with the same
programming force which Netscape claimed Microsoft didn't have.

The worse thing somebody could do to somebody else is to make false
claims about them. And Ben is doing a very exact thing. But Ben also
knows that Microsoft won't bother to defend themselves here so he is
free to slander them all he wants too.

The difference between Ben and I, is I allow Ben to defend himself. Ben
on the other hand doesn't allow the one whom he is slandering to defend
themselves. So I must speak up. See the difference?

Do you know what I am talking about?

Yes, Ben can slander anybody he wants to and I am not allowed to say the
truth. And you find my comments offensive and I find Ben's comments
offense. And the difference is I don't have the freedom to be offend,
but you two do.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 8GB 1GB SoDIMM Adata 16GB
Windows XP SP2 and Xandros Linux

I understand now: you find MS offended, by Ben's
statements, and you are defending them. (Correct?
I honestly did not see that.) Well, that's something
different altogether.

I surely can't spend time on this now, but I will in
fact think about it. It is an interesting proposition,
to me, that a harsh opinion on a huge corporation
is received as offensive. (Personally offensive, I'd
add, since you respond with statements that are
very personal, and possibly quite offensive. And
you so insist on them.)

I mean that I find it interesting, this was not meant
to be a roundabout way of dismissing it. I do still
maintain that your charges for Ben were not at all
appropriate for a forum like this one. But I'll think
about where you may be coming from. But then
again, maybe we wish to move this discussion
*outside of this forum.*

I would offer one thought to you: this isn't about
the truth, which you invoke so often; it would be
rather about other things, but I am not sure which.
(Again -- this is not meant to be dismissive.)

On Nov 26, 2:19*pm, BillW50 wrote:
Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST):



On Nov 26, 11:53 am, BillW50 wrote:
John wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:54 -0500:

On Nov 24, 7:30 am, Ben Myers wrote:
With the exception of Microsoft, of course, and the printer/scanner
manufacturers, hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel, AMD,
nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming about
releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that little or
no reverse engineering is needed for members of the Linux crowd to
design device drivers. *Some hardware manufacturers even offer their own
Linux device drivers, open sourced, of course.
The reverse engineering for Linux comes in when it is time to design
software to be compatible with Microsoft's standards imposed by
monopoly. *You will likely not find a technical spec from Microsoft for
NTFS, for example, but you will find Linux implementations of software
to do all operations on NTFS partitions, directories and files.
HP, Epson, Canon, and Lexmark (and any other printer manufacturer) are
also especially obtuse about their printer control languages and APIs to
manage printers/scanners. *So Linux engineers have to reverse engineer
whatever support is needed. *The exception here is PostScript, which is
the only printer control language to use in a mixed Linux-Windows
environment... Ben Myers
Thanks for the clarification Ben. - Zack
Yes Ben Thank You. *I usually don't post but this has gone way out of
hand. *in my 42 years in and around computers I find that something that
should have been informative and easy to handle ended up in this
fashion. *Your information that I have read from various groups that I
visit and pay attention to show me that you give out and explain that
info to all that ask. *Keep up the good work.
John... there is a lot of fear, uncertainly, and deception (FUD) in
Ben's post. Ben makes it sound like Microsoft is only not forthcoming
"about releasing detailed specifications". And you John, bought it!
Hook, line, and sinker.

When Ben is saying hey "hardware manufacturers of all stripes (Intel,
AMD, nVidia, Realtek, ADI, Creative) have been extremely forthcoming
about releasing detailed specifications for their hardware, so that
little or no reverse engineering is needed..." Ben is assuming people
are not so bright and will buy into his FUD.

What Ben wasn't telling you is what do all of them have in common? That
is right! They all are hardware manufactures with the exception of
Microsoft. And what Ben foolishly wants everybody to believe if hardware
manufactures do it so should Microsoft, who sells software.

What Ben also doesn't tell you is that it is in the hardware
manufacturer's best interest to provide programmers the tools to use
their hardware. If they don't, the hardware is totally useless without
software to run on them.

And no, hardware manufactures are not forth coming when it comes to
reverse engineering of their hardware. They only provide enough for the
programmers to write software for it. Nothing useful for us hardware
engineers at all. For example, I have been tying for months to learn
more about Asus PCI-e miniport which they call Flash_Con. I also have
been trying to get specs on SSD. Sorry but nobody is forthcoming about
specs of their hardware like what Ben wants people to believe.

So no, Microsoft isn't the only one who does this. Virtually every for
profit company does exactly the very same thing. This is called trade
secrets. Ben wants everybody to believe that only Microsoft should
release all of its trade secrets and nobody else should, well besides
printer manufactures.

Why would Ben want this? Easy, Ben doesn't like Microsoft. I don't have
much love for them either. But unlike Ben, I believe in telling the
truth and I refuse to use fear, uncertainly, and deception to impress
others.

Now Ben would like to see Microsoft get toppled. And so would I.
Although here is where the similarity ends. Ben's kind tries to do this
through dishonest means. And I believe this is exactly the same foes
that can't win against Microsoft. As Microsoft knows all the tricks too
well and has all the money, so people like Ben will always fail.
Microsoft learned from the best, IBM remember? And history shows that I
am indeed on the right track.

Like what I have been saying for many years, the only way to topple
Microsoft is by non-evil, non-greedy, and non-dumb people. This is
something Microsoft has no defenses against.

And when Ben talks about reverse engineering Microsoft software, what
Ben is really talking about is stealing. As reverse engineering is an
illegal activity mentioned in virtually all software license agreements.
Since Ben has shown he uses dishonesty tactics, I am not surprised he
also condoms stealing as well. He also seems to believe this is
his/their right as well. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever. As that
is like a car thief believes it is his right for me to leave the doors
unlocked and the keys left in the ignition. Plus a full tank of gas to
boot.

Ben and others will never have a chance of winning in an intellect
conversation if they continue to use fear, uncertainly, and deception.
Only when they become honest with themselves and others will they ever
have a chance.

Alright, I must interfere.

Be my guest.

Look Bill: you bring up a lot of good statements
here (while they can be debated, I like them); but,
you did not have to mention any one person at all,
even if you are responding to someone's personal
view. *(And you most definitely did not have to be
offensive.) Mind you, this is even if you were right,
with everything you are saying -- including those
personal assessments. *(Which I don't see how
you would know ... by reading someone's posts?)

I disagree. Conflict of interest is indeed very important (as it changes
everything). And if this isn't talked about, the truth will never come
out. And conflict of interests are personal. It can't be any other way.

Make you points, by all means, and do not get
personal. (In public. *Do whatever you want to do
in private.) Please stay respectful, and resist any
urge to assess people who you are conversing,
arguing with. For one thing, I take your arguments
way more seriously if they are about, well what is
talked about, and not about people involved. And
honestly, if MS is being discussed, I couldn't care
less about your attempted psychological profiling.
(This is even if you actually knew the person you
are talking about.)

I do respect Ben and I am hoping that Ben will respond in a highly
intelligent matter. But so far, Ben refuses to do so. Like I mentioned
before, Ben's refusals will be seen to many as an act of guilt. And as I
have mentioned a lot already, it isn't about Ben per se, but about
people who thinks like Ben.

Put differently: Ben has, very nicely, indicated his
opinion on certain matters; leave him alone, damn
it! Discuss the opinion, tear it into shreds, if you so
wish. Otherwise you are being simply personally
offensive, even if you were right. *And you *were*
very offensive -- even to me, by making me read
unconstrained derogatory personal assessments
in a thread about computers.

Ben has been very nice? Slandering others isn't nice at all IMHO. And
why I spoke up in the first place. This is exactly what Netscape did to
Microsoft and started the whole MS bashing stuff. And Netscape was very
bold about it as well. Maybe to you it is nice, but not to me. Microsoft
also didn't take it very well either and crushed Netscape with the same
programming force which Netscape claimed Microsoft didn't have.

The worse thing somebody could do to somebody else is to make false
claims about them. And Ben is doing a very exact thing. But Ben also
knows that Microsoft won't bother to defend themselves here so he is
free to slander them all he wants too.

The difference between Ben and I, is I allow Ben to defend himself. Ben
on the other hand doesn't allow the one whom he is slandering to defend
themselves. So I must speak up. See the difference?

Do you know what I am talking about?

Yes, Ben can slander anybody he wants to and I am not allowed to say the
truth. And you find my comments offensive and I find Ben's comments
offense. And the difference is I don't have the freedom to be offend,
but you two do.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 8GB 1GB SoDIMM Adata 16GB
Windows XP SP2 and Xandros Linux

I understand now: you find MS offended, by Ben's
statements, and you are defending them. (Correct?
I honestly did not see that.) Well, that's something
different altogether.

I surely can't spend time on this now, but I will in
fact think about it. It is an interesting proposition,
to me, that a harsh opinion on a huge corporation
is received as offensive. (Personally offensive, I'd
add, since you respond with statements that are
very personal, and possibly quite offensive. And
you so insist on them.)

I mean that I find it interesting, this was not meant
to be a roundabout way of dismissing it. I do still
maintain that your charges for Ben were not at all
appropriate for a forum like this one. But I'll think
about where you may be coming from. But then
again, maybe we wish to move this discussion
*outside of this forum.*

I would offer one thought to you: this isn't about
the truth, which you invoke so often; it would be
rather about other things, but I am not sure which.
(Again -- this is not meant to be dismissive.)

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:23:22 -0800 (PST), Zack
wrote:

On Nov 26, 2:19*pm, BillW50 wrote:
Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST):



---snip----


Well I'm going to pick on your post but actually this is really meant
to everyone who wants to repond to your post... bill, ben, etc....


I guess I'm going to have to say what is the OBVIOUS advice now....

"take this stuff to email" so this newsgroup can get back to it's
norm.

No Zack I'm not trying to really pick on you but I don't feel like
repeating this post to several people simultaneously so I'm picking on
your last post g..... nothing personal, I promise !!


Last I realize I'm no angel since I stray off topic too but I'm still
working on that g.

On Nov 26, 6:33*pm, RnR wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:23:22 -0800 (PST), Zack

wrote:
On Nov 26, 2:19*pm, BillW50 wrote:
Zack wrote on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:39:21 -0800 (PST):

*---snip----

Well I'm going to pick on your post but actually this is really meant
to everyone who wants to repond to your post... bill, ben, etc....

I guess I'm going to have to say what is the OBVIOUS advice now....

"take this stuff to email" *so this newsgroup can get back to it's
norm. *

No Zack I'm not trying to really pick on you but I don't feel like
repeating this post to several people simultaneously so I'm picking on
your last post g..... * nothing personal, I promise !!

Last I realize I'm no angel since I stray off topic too but I'm still
working on that g.

Good call, this is in fact what I suggest
in my last post. I have never done any
thing like this in a forum, but I felt I had
to say things.

Btw, I honestly did *not* post that three
times! I mean really.

(Zach, you can delete 2 in Ggroups and no one will know! (^J^)

Btw, I honestly did *not* post that three
times! I mean really.

On Nov 27, 5:01*am, wrote:
(Zach, you can delete 2 in Ggroups and no one will know! (^J^)

Btw, I honestly did *not* post that three

times! *I mean really.

Thank you for saying that! I will try again
to find how to do it. (I did try once, in vain,
but apparently I gave up to early.

On Nov 28, 2:11*pm, Zack wrote:
On Nov 27, 5:01*am, wrote:

(Zach, you can delete 2 in Ggroups and no one will know! (^J^)

Btw, I honestly did *not* post that three

times! *I mean really.

Thank you for saying that! *I will try again
to find how to do it. (I did try once, in vain,
but apparently I gave up to early.

Zack, if you're signed in to GooGroups and you go for More
options...then choose Remove.

you can use AOMEI Partition Assistant repartiton your boot drivein Windows 7/vista/8/xp. you can use its home edition which is free to help you manage your disk well. http://www.disk-partition.com/free-p...n-manager.html