Linux-Advocacy Digest #976, Volume #25 Wed, 5 Apr 00 21:13:11 EDT
Contents:
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451640 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Gary Hallock)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Jim Dabell)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Michael Sims)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (phil hunt)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (phil hunt)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (phil hunt)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (phil hunt)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Dustin Collett)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Shadow Hunter)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:40:57 GMT
On 5 Apr 2000 23:18:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
Steinberg) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>: Yea and you're FOS when you say it takes 2 seconds to find
>: /etc/ppp/options scanning the entire drive.
>
>: Try this:
>: cd /
>: cd ..
>
>Why did you go up a directory after you went to the root directory? There
>is no imaginary "My Computer" or "Desktop" sitting above the root....this
>is a real operating system with a real file system, not some kludged POS.
Because everytime I do a cd
then find -name
it never finds the file I am looking for.
Bottom line is you are using my cli ineptness to cover the fact that
find -name sux under linux.
>I know...you STILL don't understand the basics of file system
>navigation; it's sad, isn't it?
Nope, cause I don't have any desire to run LinSux.
>: Now do a find -name and tell me it takes 2 seconds.
>
>The same can be accomplished by doing a "find / -name" from any
>subdirectory. But, you'd already know that if you understood the basics
>of file system navigation.
Don't have to under Windows. Find filename and away it goes, 1000x
faster than Linsux I might add.
>Look, you've beaten this find issue to death, and the result of the
>discussion has been:
>1. You're wildly exagerating the time it takes to do a find in Linux
Nope. YOU are the only one claiming that you can find the file
SEARCHING THE ENTIRE HARD DRIVE in 2 seconds.
>2. There's no need to use find in Linux, since locate is available and
> faster
I'm not idscussing indexed systems here just a brute force approach. I
can use fastfind under Windows also.
>3. Even if there were no locate in Linux, you would still never have to
> use find to brute-force search from root, since files on a Linux system
> are logically organized: if you're searching for a system configuration
> file it will be in /etc or a subdirectory thereof; if you're searching
> for some data saved by a user, it will be in /home/<username> or a
> subdirectory thereof.
You are trying to narrow down the search. TRY THE ENTIRE DRIVE and see
what happens..
Two seconds? You are a liar......
>Everything that needs to be said, including regarding point 1, has been
>said. There's no point in going back over it again.
Of course not. You have been proved a liar and a LinoShill...
>Rather more interesting is the side effect of this discussion, which has a
>bearing on all other discussions that involve you:
>4. Steve is clueless regarding the basics of file system navigation. This
> casts into great doubt his assertions that he has spent significant
> time or read a significant amount about using Linux. Even more
> interesting is that . and / (where his confusion lies) have the SAME
> meaning in DOS/Windows as they do in UNIX.
Typical Terry Porter crap..Terry hasn't been able to make a decent
point of his own in ages. He prefers to hang on and shill with the
likes of jedi and so forth.
> Clickety-clickety-click, Stevie!
>
>: Stop the lies and the changing of the focus to my typo's and be a good
>: boy and tell the truth.
>
>Typo, Stevie? People don't make typos THREE TIMES in a row. In one
>posting, you said:
>
> I said ./ not /
> Big difference.....
> Try again.......
>
>Then, in another, you said:
>
> Nope the point of the discussion is speed not capability.
> And for David that is ./ not /
>
>And then, in a THIRD, separate post, in response to Darren pointing out
>that "If ./ is not /, then the search would be faster," you said:
>
> Search from the top directory on the tree. Not from the users home
> directory, ie: the entire drive.
>
>You made the same mistake three times in a row, the last after someone
>explicitly pointed it out to you. That's not a typo, that's total
>ignorance.
>
>You are totally ignorant.
>
>Follow your own advice: "be a good boy and tell the truth."
So what?
I'm not a command line yo-yo like the rest of you.
Clarified here:
Search the entire hard drive however you choose to do it David and
tell me that you return a result in 2 seconds using find -name.
Hint you will be a liar if you do........
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:43:12 GMT
You can select it when you install.
Hint though, nobody gives a flying fsk. But then again that is just
the kind of thing that you LinoShills would focus on instead of easy
to use programs that the average Joe would want, and is exactly the
reason why Linux will take a nosedive shortly.
Steve
"Support Windows...Give Away a Linux CD Today!!!"
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 19:27:33 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Damn, I hate Windows. I just noticed all my posts were registering with the
>wrong time. I just happened to log into Windows last night and it decides to
>change my clock (daylight savings). When will Windows learn to work in GMT?
>
>Gary
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS
supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:44:30 GMT
I don't care if you have choice.
I have plenty of choice. I can walk into CompUSA and pick up just
about any piece of hardware or software and it will work. Under
Windows/Mac that is.
Linux need not apply.....
Steve
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:07:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SomeOne Else)
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 22:15:59 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>No offence, but you Winvocates are *always* buying scanners and DVDs. How many can
>you
>>realistically use at once, even if they do work out of the box?
>>
>>But seriously, though, SCSI scanners give noticable performance increases over
>parallel
>>ones, but it obvioulsy comes at a price. Personally, I can spend the mmoney I saved
>on
>>software, on hardware. You're choice (and aren't you glad that you do have a choice)?
>>
>No. They're WInvocates. People who have wet dreams over the thought of
>Bill Gates. They don't want a choice. They don't want us to have a
>choice. Now the courts say they have to give it to us, and they are
>are coming here to whine.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451640
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:47:56 GMT
Today's Haakmat digest:
1> There's something irresistible about you.
Then explain why so many people claim to kill-file me (and I emphasize
the word "claim").
1> fl. 10 or fl. 15 if you star in it.
And how many others would be willing to pay the same?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: 5 Apr 2000 18:42:34 -0500
In article <CSCG4.356$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > No, which PROPRIETARY protocols from MS would that be?
>>
>> ActiveX, MS-CHAP, originally SMB, originally Lan Manager,
>> originally DHCP, and currently they are pushing for the
>> inclusion of OLE objects within XML.
>MS-CHAP i'll grant you on, though I believe it's published. "originally" is
>meaningless. We're talking about Microsofts standards today.
How do you get NT machines to authenticate against anything but
a Microsoft box as a domain controller? Is that a protocol?
Is it published? Which component can you replace to make
the client side co-exist with standard network authentication
methods?
>> I realize that Microsoft publishes many of it's standards
>> to MSDN, but protects this information from Linux developers
>> with nondisclosure agreements.
>
>No, there are no such protections and no such non-disclosures.
So where are the domain controller documents? And what is
really happening when IIS talking to IE pretends to be doing
HTTP but pops up an authentication window that has a
third box for 'domain' information? For some reason this
doesn't work when a standard http proxy gets between
the two. Why is that?
>There's no such thing as a front page extension to HTML. Front Page
>extensions are server only and are used for maintenance, not for display of
>HTML. More holes in your knowledge and more of you fabricating details to
>suit your needs.
WHAT??? You know very well that Front Page offers by default to
design animations and other things that can only be displayed
by the non-standard extensions in IE. Just like visual J++
creates java applets that won't work with anything but Microsoft
browsers. Are you going to claim that is accidental? That
Microsoft didn't realize that the average user would think
the other products were broken instead when they had in
fact been tricked into building non-standards-conforming
code by these tools?
>Tell me, how does Microsoft "demand" that web pages contain ActiveX?
Build something in FrontPage with animations. Build an applet with
with J++. Are you warned that the generated code is non-standard?
>The customer buys what they want, and what they want is Windows. Thus the
>OEM must buy Windows. Microsoft is dependant upon customer wants any way
>you look at it.
That is clearly not true when the customers ask for refunds for the
pre-installed gunk. Has Microsoft ever responded to these requests?
>X11 is an entirely different GUI than Windows has. "complementary" is a bit
>of an exageration. XFree86 is free for anyone and there is no other
>widespread GUI available for Linux.
>
>> Microsoft still refuses to support NFS.
>
>NFS is a Sun proprietary protocol.
Isn't the full spec released now?
>> They have chosen to do their
>> own "Active Directory" instead of X.509/LDAP.
>
>Which is LDAP compliant.
Does that mean you can now do your authentication against
a standard LDAP server? Or just that they pretend to
be a standard server?
>It's completely standards conforming Kerberos.
Does that mean you can use a standard Kerberos
server as your win2K domain controller? Or just
that they pretend to be a standard server?
>> MS-CHAP is "based on CHAP",
>
>Inded it was.
And broke everything that understood chap. As usual.
>> but was forced onto all ISPs who wanted to use NT as a terminal
>> server (AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy...). MS-CHAP prevented the use
>> of Trumpet Winsock, Linux, or KA9Q TCP/IP - even though these
>> stacks had been instrumental in the adoption of TCP/IP.
>
>CHAP was hardly necessary, nor did it preclude the useage of those stacks,
>since MS-CHAP could be turned off.
Really? Our cisco rep says that we can't run normal chap and ms-chap
both when authenticating dialins against a domain controller?
Why is that?
>> In some cases, Microsoft has introduced a standard with the
>> intent of driving out competitors. Once the competitors are
>> driven out of the market almost entirely, Microsoft will publish
>> the standards.
>
>Which "standard" did Microsoft introduce, but not document?
Domain controller authentication. How do we use another
type of authentication with NT/win2k clients?
>The success of the internet as we know it today is most certainly due to
>Unix, but it's also due to Microsoft, since without Microsofts support of
>it, it would not be anything as ubiquitious as it is today.
Huh? OS/2 released full internet support including a browser while
Mr. Gates was still proclaiming that windows would never include
a browser for free. And MSN was expected to be a proprietary
imitation of the internet. People have such short memories...
>Wait a minute here. Aren't you the one complaining about how microsofts
>minor extensions to standards is the evil of the universe, yet it's OK to
>have proprietary versions of Unix OS's that can be as much as 10%
>incompatible with other Unix OS's?
Of course - if you don't illegally use your monopoly status to force
your extensions on unwilling users, innovation is a good thing.
IBM was prevented from abusing people with one product because
they needed another, AT&T always was at a disadvantage marketing
unix because their monopoly status, and now it is time for
Microsoft to realize that they can't use their monopoly position
of one product to bundle other things in an anti-competitive way.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 19:58:39 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2000 23:18:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
> Steinberg) wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >: Yea and you're FOS when you say it takes 2 seconds to find
> >: /etc/ppp/options scanning the entire drive.
> >
> >: Try this:
> >: cd /
> >: cd ..
> >
> >Why did you go up a directory after you went to the root directory? There
> >is no imaginary "My Computer" or "Desktop" sitting above the root....this
> >is a real operating system with a real file system, not some kludged POS.
>
> Because everytime I do a cd
> then find -name
> it never finds the file I am looking for.
Hint: cd with no parameters brings you to your home directory, not /. No
wonder you can't find anything. cd .. after cd / is a no-op.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 01:17:12 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
[snip]
> >> Every computer with Linux pre-loaded should come with one. A competant
> >> Sysadmin that is......
> >> But, fear not, there aren;t that many Linux pre-loads going out.
> >> Try calling Dell and asking for one....After the silence at the end of
> >> the phone, ask for a supervisor.
> >
> >My point was, the average businessperson would have a sysadmin at work.
> >The average nine-year-old would have parents.
>
> Actually most don't continue their initial support contract because
> they don't need to.
Excuse me? Are you talking about the sysadmins or the parents?
[snip]
> >> But Linux has done little to improve that other than put a second rate
> >> interface on top of 15 year old boat anchor programs that still
> >> require text file editing and are user hostile.
> >
> >Linux has done little to improve that, because until recently it was
> >playing catch-up. MS have been developing operating systems since the
> >early eighties. Linux is less than a decade old, and IMHO is reaching,
> >and has surpassed MS operating systems in some areas.
>
> Linux has progressed quantum leaps no doubt, but to think that it will
> replace Windows on the desktop is idiotic at present.
Yes, as I have said, I don't believe Linux in it's present form is
capable of catering for a lot of desktop users. But I don't see any
reason why it's incapable of doing so in the near future (near beig as
relative as "desktop user").
> >Second rate interface? Which one are you talking about? There are many
> >to choose from, some of which mimick Win9x. If they are *all* bad
> >interfaces, then the ones that are like Win9x are bad as well, and by
> >implication, so is Win9x. In this situation, Linux users would be
> >better off, because at least they have a choice about which interface to
> >use. However, if you agree that not *all* of Linux's interfaces are
> >bad, then you are going back on your original statement. There is no
> >way for you to win *that* argument.
>
> Classic Linvocate "more is better" argument.
>
> You have 25 AMC Pacer's.
> I have 1 1999 Corvette Limited.
>
> Who is in a better situation?
You missed my point. You have 25 cars. Some of them are identical to a
[brand x], some of them identical to a [brand y]. Some of them are just
plain bizarre. Would you be in a better position if you had the choice
of one of the 25 cars, or would you be better off with a [brand y] car?
You are indefensible here, no analogy will save you.
> You have presented some good, honest points and despite our
> differences I respect your opinion.
>
> Steve
>
You too. In spite of our differences, the end result is the same right
now - neither of us thinks Linux is ready for the "mainstream" yet,
without a little help. I hate being painted as a rabid fringe lunatic
:)
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Sims)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:16:05 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 04:16:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz
Kylheku) wrote:
>I once tried newsreading under Windows with Forte Free Agent, which is touted
>as some hot shit in the Windows. I lasted a remarkable two weeks. I'm still
>trying to block the painful memories. What an obnoxious piece of crud!
>
>No wonder Windows users stumble around Usenet like they are lost. ;)
I'm curious....what was it that bugged you about Free Agent?
I've tried nearly every newsreader available for Win32, and I can't
even stand to use anything besides Agent. (I am fairly ignorant about
Linux newsreaders, however.) As a matter of fact, Free Agent is one
of the few demo products that actually convinced me to buy the
commercial version. There must be something about it that clashes
with the way you normally like to work. Calling what is widely
considered to be the best newsreader available for ANY platform a
"obnoxious piece of crud" is a statement that requires some backing
up. :)
=====================================================================
Michael Sims
michaels at akamail dot com
"By eliminating covalence inhibitors, we create triple dense
carbohydrates, and thus the so called 'super doughnut'"
--Homer Simpson after getting a Pentium II cranial implant
=====================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 00:26:32 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05 Apr 2000 09:29:49 -0700,
Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
>> require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
>> very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
>> AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there
>> would be no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...
>
>Or they could take that GPLed code out of the distribution.
Would that work, legally?
I have a legal copy of Windows 98. If that contains GPL'ed code, can I
force MS to give me the source?
Or, would only the copyrightholder of the GPL'ed code be allowed to
do that? (MS has infringed on his copryright, not mine). From the
GPL:
=================>>> GPL
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
[...]
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
=================<<<
So by using GPL'ed code, MS have accepted the GPL (not sure if
unsigned contracts are valid in US law), and are therefore contractually
obliged to distribute the source.
Do any lawyers know if this is right?
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 00:30:11 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05 Apr 2000 18:12:14 +0100, Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >But who is there to fight for the open-source model when its licenses
>> >are violated?
>>
>> Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
>> require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
>> very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
>> AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there would be
>> no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...
>
>Cool idea :)
>
>(Would all those companies' lawyers be remotely interested in a mere
>license violation when the money involved is nil, and how would many folks
>go about bringing a case to court anyway? (More to the point, as long as
>it's possible I can sleep easy :) )
I think they would. Sun paid large amounts of money for StarOffice,
mostly to annoy/discomfort MS.
AOL also has huge interests in making sure MS doesn't get overdominant,
as then MS could ruin AOL's business. Ditto Apple and Corel. IBM less
so, but I bet a few IBM'ers would like revenge for how MS shafted
them with Windows over OS/2.
The FSF would of course be interested.
I'm sure thousands of programmers and other computer users would be willing
to donate to help a court case.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 00:31:45 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05 Apr 2000 17:44:02 +0100 (BST),
David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
>>>require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
>>>very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
>>>AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there
>>>would be no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...
>>Or they could take that GPLed code out of the distribution.
>
>They'd still have violated the copyright of the authors of the GPLed code
>with the earlier versions (implying that money could be extracted); and
>they'd have quite the problem if they suddenly had to stop distributing
>all existing versions of Windows, wouldn't they?
They wouldn't have to stop distributing them; they'd just have to
open their source.
I doubt if stopping distributing violating versions of Windows would
allow them to evade that requirement.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 00:42:23 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05 Apr 2000 17:14:48 +0100 (BST),
David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>But who is there to fight for the open-source model when its licenses are
>>violated?
>
>Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
>require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
>very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
>AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there
>would be no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...
I suspect that there is little or no GPL'ed code in Windows or
MS Office, because of this potential threat.
If MS did have such GPL'ed code, some of their employees would know
about it. Employees from time to time leave and get new employers. What
would stop a former MS employee blowing the whistle?
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: Dustin Collett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:40:45 -0500
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000, Damien wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:18:46 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 20:50:09 GMT, "Leonard F. Agius"
>| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>| accumulated over the years just to run wannabe Linux applications with
>| crude, sometimes down right hostile interfaces (sendmail comes to
>| mind).
>| You Linvocates have got to be kidding.
>
>Sendmail is not an "app". It's a deamon, a mail transfer agent to be
>specific.
This person probably heard how arcane the conf files are...never implemented
it...nothing, no one who has ANY experience would dare call it an "application"
------------------------------
From: Shadow Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 20:26:33 -0400
I still find it amusing the same reason I stopped using BeOS 4.5.2 and
they haven't it yet fixed it in 5.0. I don't know if it's this system
or their OS. I'm leaning more towards their OS since any version of
Windows and Linux run fine on this system. When booting up it goes to
that nice little drive icon and hangs there and I have no choice but
to cold powercycle the machine. There was workaround for this but then
the problem was that it wouldn't read my cd-rom. Until they fix these
problems BeOS can curl up and die for all I care. Linux and Windows
are much more ahead of the time. Plus I don't like a Macintosh style
Interface in the first place. This is why I run a PC.
Shadow Hunter
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:55:25 +0200, Sascha Bohnenkamp
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Go for it:
>> http://www.be.com/products/freebeos/
>well there is not much, an no prof. software ...
>maybe more than for linux ... ok, but mostly these are
>windows-ports.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:29:49 +0000
Otto wrote:
>
<jedidiah>
>
> > If law firms can't be free to choose what they view to be
> > the best product, who can...
>
> Who is stopping a law firm from choosing the best product? Once the choice
> is made, be that MS, Unix, or even Linux, they are stuck. The platform makes
> no difference.
Stuck with Linux, perhaps, but not a particular vendor. If Red Hat (for
example) gives you
grief, there's SuSe, Caldera, Debian, Corel, ...
>
>
> Otto
Colin R. Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: 6 Apr 2000 00:35:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *PL0NK*
You may as well simply filter (if you know how) COLA at this point,
since you seem to have killfiled everyone in it.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
