Linux-Advocacy Digest #979, Volume #25 Thu, 6 Apr 00 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Jim Richardson)
Re: Sorry Microsoft, Facts Mean More Than Money On The Net (was: benchmark for speed
in linux / windows (Jim Richardson)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Jim Richardson)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Jim Richardson)
Re: Review: Corel Office 2000 (Christopher Browne)
lnux from 320 to 56 ("JOGIBA")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. (T.
Max Devlin)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(SomeOne Else)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Jim Richardson)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven (Bob Lyday)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: New MS commercials.. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? ("D. Wilson")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 03:10:11 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:59:46 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 03:55:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>>
>>You are comparing apples and oranges, Find on linux is a lot more versatile
>>than find on windows. If you want a simple filename locator, use locate, that's
>>what it is for.
>
>No I'm not. It's a basic concept to find a file. I am interested in
>the end result, meaning I have found my file.
Gee, locate does a great job at quickly finding a file, why are you
objecting to using it?
>
>Linux is slow as crap which to me means it is less powerful.
>
You have shown that you are unable to use the correct tool for the
job, this is amusing, but nothing else.
>A bicycle is more useful to me if I have to go to the store than a
>helicoptor because I don't know how to fly a helicoptor. The
>technology of the helicoptor may be better but it doesn't do the task
>I need to do as well.
I think you need to go back and retake analogies 101...
>
>
>
>> Or should I say that Mutt opens up a lot faster and lets me read my mail a
>>lot quicker than Outlook, therefore windows is slow?
>
Silence means yes?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Sorry Microsoft, Facts Mean More Than Money On The Net (was: benchmark
for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 03:17:49 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 12:03:26 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 04:01:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Since all you are searching for is a filename, why are you using
>>a tool (linux find) which does so much more? rather than a simple
>>filename locator?
>
>
>Because I don't feel like indexing my files everytime something
>changes, even with a cron job.
>It will always be behind.
Finally! a reason instead of petulance, huzzah!
I need to find the last executable file writen or modified by a particular
user, after a particular date, how do I do this with windows find?
>>>
>>>Linux speaks for itself. I gave away 2 Linux CD's today. The suckers
>>>begged me for copies and I was more than happy to oblige.
>>>Just one look at Linux and they'll be back to Windows in a flash.
>>>
>>
>>
>>If linux speaks for itself as you say, then why are you here?
>
>Pure entertainment. Nothing more. Nothing less.
>It beats the hell out of Jerry Springer :)
>
I wish someone would... :)
>>If linux sucks so much, why have you bought (by your claim) over
>>50 cd's? Even if you are ftp'ing and burning your own, that's a lot
>>of effort for an OS you hate so much...
>
>This is over a year or so. I get a lot of my CD's for free.
>
then you paid for the rest? why?
>
>>>Linux supporters and Facts are an oxymoron.
>>
>>Methinks you need to look up the word in a dictionary.
>
>Read some of jedi's comments lately?
Jedi is _one_ linux supporter, or should I assume that no windows supporter
knows what su can do based on one windows supporter?
Maybe we can judge all windows supporters on the basis of Boris?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 03:22:09 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 22:46:17 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Yawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
>
>More Linux lies....
>
>
>Locate uses an indexed database. Find under Win does not, to the best
>of my knowledge.
And the windows file system you are searching is Fat16 or Fat32 yes?
Why not compare equivilent filesystems. Since there is a whole lot of data
that Fat16/32 don't track.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 03:29:44 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 20:42:33 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Yea and you're FOS when you say it takes 2 seconds to find
>/etc/pp/options scanning the entire drive.
^^^ should be ppp
>Try this:
>
>cd /
>cd ..
you can't go "up" from /
/ is as high as you can get.
>
>Now do a find -name and tell me it takes 2 seconds.
depends on the hardware really.
>Is that 2 seconds measured by your time program or 2 seconds to
>actually post the location on the screen?
>
>In any case you are FOS unless your entire hard disk is cached, which
>is highly unlikely since Linvocates tend to prefer antique hardware.
>
>Although now that I think of it maybe your Seagate 225, at 20megs or
>so IS cached......
^^^^^^ should be an elipsis, three dots, thus ...
>Wouldn't surprise me to see Linvocates running one at all.
>
>Stop the lies and the changing of the focus to my typo's and be a good
^^^ should be
plural, not possesive
>boy and tell the truth.
>
>Two seconds?
>Right.....
^^^ again, elipsis
>You can scan an entire drive under Linux, and that part is important,
>in 2 seconds and produce an output on the screen showing the locations
>of the file....
>
>Not reading some piped log 5 minutes later....
>
>Sure we believe you.......
>Really we do......
>
>Idiot..
>
I am beginning to believe that you may not even know what an elipsis is.
(hey, I wanted to join the flame-fest, it was fun, sort of...)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Review: Corel Office 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 03:32:24 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Craig Kelley would say:
>The first time you run an application it takes a while to setup the
>system. It gives you your own configuration settings, and then it
>plays font games. It comes with it's own font server, called
>"Fontastic", which I assume is meant to mediate between X11 and
>printer fonts.
Fontastic is a True Type Font Server for X, produced by a company
called Gallium. [Check out Gallium's physical address, and then look
at Corel's. It's *not* a wonder that Corel would use Gallium's
product...]
>The widgets are definately kde. It looks like I'm running kwm inside
>the application's MDI. The are some Window-isms here to (not
>surprising, considering the winelib they used. Well, let's see what
>other libraries it uses:
>
>$ ldd `which paradox`
> not a dynamic executable
>$ ldd `which wordperfect`
> not a dynamic executable
>
>Whoa! Statically linked everything. Not very nice for an office
>*suite*..
Static linking means that they can deploy the same binaries on all
sorts of distributions without needing to fight with "library
versionitis." Hopefully GLIBC will stabilize sufficiently,
sufficiently soon, that library version proliferation will diminish...
>Paradox performs very quickly. It is much faster than gawd-awful
>Netscape on the same machine. I was very surprised. Let's move on to
>something more exciting (*sniff*, I couldn't see an ODBC linker in
>Paradox).
It sounds to me as if Paradox is likely to be the *only* component I'm
likely to care to install.
[It could represent a way of transitioning my Dad off of Win98 to
Linux, as he's got some crucial apps that run on Paradox. If he runs
Linux, I can *usefully* do system administration from a thousand miles
away, which is rather different from the sadly too-common situation
where he bounces out tech questions to his sons in far flung places
where we don't even necessarily have Win9x systems around that would
allow us to know what's going on...]
>Frankly, I'm surprised they boxed this puppy. It needs quite a bit
>more polishing -- yes, it works, but c'mon guys.
Oh, dear. That's regrettable.
When the *major point* of this package is to provide a way for the
"naive WinTel folk" to migrate away from Microsoft, it is *not* going
to be a good thing if it's got significant stability and "polish"
issues.
--
"We use Linux for all our mission-critical applications. Having the
source code means that we are not held hostage by anyone's support
department." -- Russell Nelson, President of Crynwr Software
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "JOGIBA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: lnux from 320 to 56
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 22:54:23 -0400
Were is the money ?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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.
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:43:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Hauck wrote in alt.destroy.microsoft; 4 Apr 2000 15:44:00 GMT:
An EXCEPTIONAL review of competition in the telecommunications industry.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SomeOne Else)
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.
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 03:44:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:44:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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.
Where have you been. Something under Windows will avctually work? I
think not.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 03:48:55 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:40:57 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>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
cd with no options or arguments, simply puts you in your $HOME directory
(usually /home/$USER)
Then, running find -name somefile
will certainly fail to find somefile if it is not in the /home/$USER
directory. Clear?
If you come in early tomorrow, we can go over environmental variables.
>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.
>
Well, something certainly sucks if you don't know how to use it...
>
>
>>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.
>
Well, that would go a long way toward explaining your ignorance of it.
>>: 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.
1000x? is that a lie? or mere hyperbole?
>>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.
You're the one claiming that linux find is 1000x slower than windows find.
>>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.
when comparing fastfind with locate, which one wins?
>>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..
oh dear, are we going to have to go over file hierarchy again?
what if you have (*gasp*) multiple partitions on multiple drives?
>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...
>
"I will *not* flame poor grammar, I will *not* flame poor grammar"
>>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........
Hell, I got a result in under 0.5 sec, results kept coming, because I searched
for var, :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:00:44 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >: Try this:
> >: cd /
> >: cd ..
> Steve
Actually, when you type:
cd \
cd ..
in DOS it does the same thing.
--Dan O'Nolan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 20:52:20 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven
Robert Moir wrote:
>
> "Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > phil hunt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:34:40 GMT, Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Rex Ballard has been going around for at least 5 years spreading tales
> about
> > > >Microsoft signing agreements with SCO to prevent them from getting into
> the
> > > >Unix market. And because everybody *WANTS* to believe it's true, they
> just
> > > >accept it as fact without verification.
> > >
> > > That's interesting.
> > >
> > > Do you (or anyone else) have any factual information either way on
> whether
> > > MS agreed with SCO not to re-enter the Unix market?
> > >
> > I just read the other day on the Net that M$ just concluded a
> > suit involving SCO. It was concluded that they engaged in
> > anti-competitive behavior and they had to pay like $180
> > million. Pocket change to them. I think the case was brought
> > in Britain for some reason. I couldn't understand the article.
> > > --
>
> Isn't "I read the other day on the Net" the modern version of "It happened
> to my brother's cousin's aunt's friend's uncle"
>
> URL please.
Sorry Robert can't remember it. Perhaps you can do a search on
it. I read the article all right and there was some kind of
suit over M$ and SCO. M$ settled out of court as always. It
involved accusations of restraint of trade.
--
Bob
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
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: 06 Apr 2000 03:56:48 GMT
On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:08:15 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Seriously though, if I had the source to Cricket Graph, I'd be
| > compiling it right now using Metrowerks for PPC.
|
| Neither did I say get the source, I said make your own. I mean, that's
| what you guys chastize us for not being able to do. Just crank out your
| own code from scratch.
Reinventing the wheel is a waste of precious resources. One of the
founding principles of the GNU project is to make it so no one will
ever need to re-invent the wheel ever again.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New MS commercials..
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 03:56:44 GMT
"W. Kiernan" wrote:
>
> Microsoft's print ads suck pretty bad - in fact, I'd have to say their
> ads are quite a bit worse than their software itself is - and everything
> on TV sucks so bad I can't watch it at all anymore, so I imagine that MS
> ads on TV would have to be pretty much uniquely awful. But I've got a
> fine and comprehensive low-tech solution for all your TV-related
> problems. Get a brick.
>
> Yours WDK - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with you.
Today's TV really, really sucks.
I don't understand why they can't figure out that not everybody on the
planet want's to
watch soap opera dribble....
I'm glad I don't watch T.V. anymore so I missed those commercials.
I'd probably shit in my pants had I saw them considering my entire business
is completely
screwed now due to Windows 2000 lack of backward compatibility with
NT software.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 04:01:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 05 Apr 2000 06:42:20 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Yea and you're FOS when you say it takes 2 seconds to find
>> /etc/pp/options scanning the entire drive.
>>
>> Try this:
>>
>> cd /
>> cd ..
>>
>
>And what does that cd .. do???
As a point of pedantry, since / is the root of the entire
Unix hierarchy, .. effectively points to the same directory
as ., or, if you prefer,
.. = . = /
which means that 'cd ..' will never fail, if one is in a valid
directory. :-) It also is a no-op when done from '/'.
On at least one other system -- Apollo Domain AEGIS -- there was a //,
a "canned root" which, when listed, showed all nodes on a network.
But not on pure Unix, or Linux.
(Side note: I'm not sure 'dir \\' works on NT. Ideally, it would. :-) )
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NT. You really didn't like those icons anyway;
here, let NT change them for you. Unasked! :-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:01:33 -0400
From: "D. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
"Leonard F. Agius" wrote:
>
> Fred wrote:
>
> > The goal should be to make the computer easy to use. People just want to
> > turn it on, and use it to get their work done. Most people don't care how
> > it works. They just want to check email, and cruise the web. They don't
> > want to dwell on how large to make the /var partition.
> >
> > > You know about partitions. I know about partitions. The typical
> > > Windows user knows C:\windows and that's it.
> > >Example of people not knowing what they are doing. They're $.10/dozen
> > >anymore thanks to Windows.
> >
> > >True, but it is the reality of the situation and a point the
> > >Linvocates fail to be able to grasp.
>
> You said it Fred.
>
> --
> Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
>
> The opinions expressed are my own.
That is what is wrong with the world and why Micro$oft has been so
successful There are only 15% of the total population of the world that
has a clue .... the other 85% rely on someone else to do the thinking
for them.
The computer is a wonderful tool. But it is just a tool, and needs to
be learned, in order to use it effectively. Since it is a tool, how can
you justify that people don't care how it works. When people drive a
vehicle (a tool), do they just want the vehicle to take them to the
grocery store, put gas in itself, and even shop for them at the store?
If so, what would be anyone's purpose in life? Better yet, why would we
even have brains, if we never want to know how things work, or how to
make them work better.
I do not profess to be a "Linvocates" as you put it, but more of a
realist. Just to prove a point, I am an MCP. I am also certified in
OS/2 and AIX. I don't believe that just because you like the
alternative OS's like the BSD's, BeOs's, and Linuxes, you don't have a
grasp on reality. Hey, not being part of the collective puts us in the
15% category. Come on and give it a try. As a matter of fact, tell a
friend, or someone you just met. It really doesn't hurt to THINK.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
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: 06 Apr 2000 04:06:00 GMT
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 02:42:15 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:29:25 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > |
| > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:13:36 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | If he believes that his intellectual property is meant to be shared,
| that's
| > | his business, and he can copyright the GPL to do just that. In fact,
| the
| > | word "copyright" is used no less than 16 times in the GPL sample text at
| > | http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.txt
| > |
| > | The hypocrisy starts when he makes excuses for piracy that violates the
| > | intellectual property of other people. Just because HIS license
| requires
| > | the user to share the covered software doesn't mean that MY copyrighted
| > | property is OK to share with others. Yet he approves of just that when
| he
| > | says that software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
| > | neighbor''.
| >
| > Yet that's exactly what it is. You have no innate right to control
| > other people's property. That right is given by the government in
| > order to foster progress. But in the case of the software industry,
| > there is good reason to believe these laws are stifling progress.
|
| You've been reading that RS manifesto, haven't you?
What can I say? I'm a fan.
| You see, my rights are not doled out by the government. I also happen to
| own MY intellectual property. I'm not interested in controlling anyone
| else's, and no one else has the right to copy what belongs to me without my
| permission. RS may think otherwise, but he's wrong.
Really? Perhaps you can explain how you own the right to limit what
other people can say or do?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
