Linux-Advocacy Digest #314, Volume #26 Sun, 30 Apr 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Split Dude! ("James A. Robertson")
Re: A split? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Split Dude! (Jim Richardson)
Re: Split Dude! ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Chad Myers Lies 205 Times For Microsoft (was: Time for the MS-rats to desert
(Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 (Jim Richardson)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Split Dude!
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 04:12:15 GMT
D'Arcy Smith wrote:
>
> "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > And specific to this case, Judge Jackson has been slapped down on this
> > turf by the Appeals Court not so long ago. Which is probably why
> > Justice wants to fast track the case past the Appeals Court.
>
> Did they (or could they have) appeal the appeals courts ruling?
They did not Appeal it so far as I know
>
> Regardless this is "due process" like it or not. If it does
> get fast tracked to the supreme court and the result
> is upheld will you then try to say that it isn't "due process"?
>
No, I wouldn't. But I'd be curious as to why they didn't use normal
procedure.
> ..darcy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A split?
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: 30 Apr 2000 04:35:11 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "James A. Robertson" wrote:
>snip<
:> > Frankly, I think they could all just save time to declare UNIX as the
:> > UNIVERSAL OS and be done with what will be and what will not be.
>
:> I see now - you're just a disgruntled tech weenie. Don't take your anger
:> out on the whole world though...
:
: My comment was biased toward UNIX simply because it is the dominate OS on
: this planet.
It is? Perhaps you should let MS know that....
While I current prefer Unix (FreeBSD in particular), it is neither
the dominate OS nore even the "best". VMS typically beats it for
larger jobs and systems such as BeOS bring some fantastic new ideas
about how an OS should function (many have already been seen as
"cool enough" to be stolen and added to Win2k:-).
"All operating systems suck, Unix just sucks less".
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want to see anything in
place that would restrict the evolution or innovation of operating
systems at large. This mentality might support MS's side in the
courts...but first they would have to innovate, which isn't likely
to ever happen. :-)
: But I would accept some across the board POSIX like compliancy which would
: be followed by all OS systems,
At what levels? Should my Palm be POSIX compatible with my S/390,
my Enterprise 250, my StarFire, my Quake III gaming machine or
PlayStation, my Avid video editing workstation?
Personally, I think not.
: even if the Federal Government mandated it at this point.
Such a mandate would do one thing and one thing only; Move any and
all OS development to other countries with their heads not quite so
far up their arse.
:> > This seems to be the judgment of Microsoft itself as it heads more
:> > towards UNIX and away from lunacy.
:> >
:> > But YES, 2,3, and 4 should all be forced to be NON-PROPRIETARY!
:>
:> Why ?
:
: Because it's totally foolish to put all your eggs in the VB basket to be
: LOCKED away on ONLY ONE OS! Make VB be cross compatible with a multitude
: of OS's!
...Actually, there have existed VB environments for Unix for quite
some time. Not from MS, but that's not the point.
They also haven't really cought on...not because they are bad VB
products, but simply because tools for Unix for the same application
realm both have existed for far longer and do the job better.
Basically: MS porting "real" VB to Unix would be pointless; No one
would likely use it.
: Right now, if Microsoft OS's failed and left the market place, the Federal
: Government would be stuck with billions in VB development!
:
: Where will they take their development!
For quick ports, they would use the commercial Unix VB tools that
exist (or similar). -Indeed, that is what they are for.
In the long term, they would likely port their code to another
system. -There are reasons why product manufactures highly dislike
using any components that are only available from one vender; To use
them puts their entire company at risk based on the success and
whims of a single other company. At the very least, if they
*must* use such a single-source component, they will likely try
to buy a substantial amount of stock in the company to help ensure
that the component stays available.
: I think they should not be allowed to develop on any system which is not
: ANSI regulated for starters.
AFAIK, the stock Windows API is pure ANSI C.
...doesn't help much, huh?
: Make them do it in C or C++
Most all of it is...
: or Fortran or Cobol so it can be ported to another system so we can have
: COMPETITIVE BIDDING for the sale of OS products to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
Huh?
: Why is is such a BRILLIANT idea to ONLY DO BUSINESS WITH ONE COMPANY SUCH
: AS MICROSOFT!
It isn't. In the hardware world, relying on a single vender is
suicide. Perhaps this will teach people the same lesson about
software.
: Force the bastards to take VB across several platforms including Linux.
Please, no. The last thing anyone needs is VB to be any more wide
spread then it already is...
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Split Dude!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 04:46:14 GMT
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 20:59:23 GMT,
Charlie Ebert, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"James A. Robertson" wrote:
>>
>> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> >
>> > "James A. Robertson" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> > > >
>>
>> > >
>> > > So the feds get to be the grand specifiers of requirements ? Be very,
>> > > very careful what you wish for. If you think that would stop with MS,
>> > > you are very naive.
>> >
>> > Who the hell is being naive? If you break the law you had better expect
>> > to get you company busted up into very small peices.
>> >
>>
>> Which law ? Note that Judge Jackson is calling them a monopoly based
>?<SNIP>
>
>Which law! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Good God man!
>
>>
>> > To read your comments you would think that somehow the Federal
>> > Government
>> > actually had a capability to bust up anyone at will.
>> >
>>
>> When Looking at Justice's track record over the last decade, I do
>> believe that. Exactly what were the people in Waco guilty of ?
>
>
>There you go folks! Microsoft and Waco!
>
>I'm from OKC. And all of a sudden I don't like you anymore.
>
>And I don't like REAL NAZI's on my advocacy channel.
>
><SNIP the REST OF THE NAZI CRAP>
>
>I think it's time you left the internet buddy.
>No more mouth. You just split.
>
>Charlie
You get to decide who says what on usenet? that's... pretty fascistic itself
don't you think?
And from the odd coincidence dept, April 19 is the day that the US assaulted
the compound at Mt Carmel, in which almost all the davidians died. April 19
is also the day that the Nazis burned the wasrsaw ghetto down...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Split Dude!
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 04:58:05 GMT
"James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Regardless this is "due process" like it or not. If it does
> > get fast tracked to the supreme court and the result
> > is upheld will you then try to say that it isn't "due process"?
> No, I wouldn't. But I'd be curious as to why they didn't use normal
> procedure.
Well the opportunity is there for them to take...
Chances are it is going to wind up at the Supreme Court
either way. MS will appeal the ruling... if they win the
DOJ will appeal that (one would assume).
Fast-tracking it gets the whole thing over again... and if
some people are right that this will lead to instability
then it is probably best to get it over with as quickly as
possible.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Myers Lies 205 Times For Microsoft (was: Time for the MS-rats to
desert
Date: 30 Apr 2000 05:01:27 GMT
In article <15OO4.1002$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Boris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hey asshole, didn't take your Proziak again? I pity you, lousy liar.
>
>Boris
Ahh, Boris, there you are! Like a beacon glowing in the night,
made of burning tires and *stinky* garbage, warning people away
from the jagged rocks of Microsoft!
>"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8eg5fr$s23$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8e7bns$jr2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"John Unekis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >[SNIP: Hateful ignorant blathering]
>> >
>> >Is this what anti-MS people think? No real logical foundation, it's just
>> >"hip" to hate MS because they're a big bad corporation? They're the
>> >big-bad-corporation-to-hate-d'jour?
>> >
>> >Man, you should go back on the medicine, you really have a problem.
>>
>> Since Chad Myers is so self-righteously critical of what he
>> claims is "hateful ignorant blathering", it makes a person
>> wonder if he's ever done anything like that himself. Let's
>> see...
>>
>> DejaNews shows that Chad Myers has posted 168 articles con-
>> taining the sentence "Have you recompiled your kernel today?".
>>
>> According to Myers' lie, Linux users have to recompile the OS
>> kernel frequently. In fact, very few Linux users ever have
>> to do it even once, since the kernel can easily be customized
>> by using loadable modules. If a new kernel is needed to fix
>> a security problem, only one person has to compile it and make
>> it available to everyone else via the Web or FTP (e.g., from
>> a Linux distributor). Myers keeps repeating his lie in order
>> to frighten people away from Linux and make them stay with
>> Microsoft.
>>
>> DejaNews shows that Chad Myers has posted 14 articles contain-
>> ing the sentence "Friends don't let friends use Linux."
>>
>> According to Myers' lie, Linux is harmful, like drunk driving,
>> which is what that warning is associated with in a widespread
>> TV advertising campaign. In fact, Linux is very beneficial for
>> users; the only thing it's harmful to is Microsoft's profits.
>> Myers keeps repeating his lie in order to frighten people away
>> from Linux and make them stay with Microsoft.
>>
>> DejaNews shows that Chad Myers has posted 23 articles with the
>> phrase "Open Sores", in reference to Open Source software.
>>
>> According to Myers' lie, Open Source software is dangerous and
>> disgusting, and people should stay away from it. In fact, OSS
>> is very useful, reliable, and secure -- generally as much or
>> more so than proprietary software, since the code is examined
>> by more people, and bug reporting and fixing is much faster.
>> The only thing it's harmful to is Microsoft's profits, and
>> those of other companies whose software isn't worth what they
>> charge for it. Myers keeps repeating this lie as well, to keep
>> people away from Linux and other Open Source products, and make
>> them go on paying hundreds of dollars every year to Microsoft.
>>
>> Chad Myers has never revealed his motivation for posting all
>> these lies in favor of one particular corporation, and the
>> richest man in the world. We can only wonder...
>>
>> Here's what John Unekis wrote about Microsoft, which Chad Myers
>> labeled as "hateful ignorant blathering". If what John says is
>> true about MS protecting senior managers from falling stock
>> values, while letting the rest of its employees fend for them-
>> selves, it reflects very badly on the company, and will cost it
>> much of its support, not only from its own employees, but from
>> working people everywhere.
>>
>> ] There is an old joke about a hooker who goes into a bar,
>> ] orders a drink, and pays with a 20-dollar bill. The
>> ] bartender holds the 20 up to the light and remarks - "Hey,
>> ] you can't use this, this $20 is counterfeit!" To which the
>> ] hooker exclaims - "Oh, no, I've been raped!"
>> ]
>> ] Now that Microsoft stock is in free-fall, quickly heading for
>> ] under $50/share, there must be a lot of Code-Ho's up in
>> ] Redmond who have sold their souls to Bill for stock options,
>> ] dreaming of retiring young and rich, who are now realizing
>> ] they've been raped.
>> ]
>> ] I noticed that Microsoft is reimbursing its senior managers
>> ] for their stock losses with new stock options which are
>> ] adjusted for the lower share price.
>> ]
>> ] For regular employees, MS is encouraging them to take a "long
>> ] term view".
>> ]
>> ] The only thing long-term at Microsoft is the duration of the
>> ] screwing that employees are getting.
>> ]
>> ] I imagine that it is going to become very difficult to find
>> ] u-haul trailers in the Redmond area as more and more victims
>> ] of the "Cult of Bill" awaken from their trances and decide to
>> ] show Microsoft a long-term view of their ass.
>> ]
>> ] Remember all you Microserfs, the ones who bail first will get
>> ] all the good jobs down in Silicon valley, the stragglers will
>> ] end up fetching them coffee....
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 05:11:58 GMT
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 23:23:34 +0200,
Mig Mig, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Michael Born wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mig Mig wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Linux has no shortcomings and i can guarantee you that Netscape >= 4.7 is
>> > faster than IE.
>>
>> No shortcomings? I know it's an advocacy NG but could we mix in a little
>> reality?
>
>OK.. but it depends on your point of view. For me there are only a few
>small things that irritate me.. such as
> - easy way to install fonts (make the right files, restart the xserver and
>add the fontpath to the init file)
can't help you here
> - app to view realtime what connections are made right now
netstat, ethereal, tcpdump, others
>- easy way to configure a personal firewall
pmfirewall works nicely, webmin does firewall rules but I haven't used it for
that so can't comment directly.
>- etc. etc.. i can live without these but they would make my Linux life
>easyer
Linux is not without flaws, it's just that it's flaws are fewer and less
important (to me anyway) than the alternatives.
--
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)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 05:14:24 GMT
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 20:34:24 GMT,
Mathias Grimmberger, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) writes:
>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 21:50:29 GMT, Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Any sane person pays for stuff in cash anyway. What do you mean, you
>> >wouldn't pay for e.g. a car in cash?
>>
>> In the US, that sort of thing tends to bring on _more_ scrutiny of one's
>> affairs rather than less. Banks are required to report cash deposits of
>> over $10,000 to the feds for example. This is because of the US
>> government's infamous "war on drugs".
>
>AFAIK there is a similar rule in Germany too. It is not related to drugs
>but to money laundering. Hmm, that's presumably the same thing...
>
>Still, that should be no reason to not do it. I have not much to hide
>from the government. I'm much more concerned about random businesses
>knowing more about me than is good for me. You see, the government
>certainly is immoral, but it is not even remotely at the same level as
>business. Quite a lot of companies seem to be willing to do literally
>*anything* to make a buck. Plus you can't trust their employees (ohh,
>you can't trust individual government bureaucrats either).
>
>In an ideal world trust would not be necessary - we would have actual
>security.
pgp (&etc) is your friend
--
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]
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: 30 Apr 2000 05:25:48 GMT
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:> - Apple is soon to release a finally-stable version of the MacOS.
:
: MacOS has usually been MUCH more stable than the Windows/Microsoft
: counterpart ever since the first Mac hit the floor.
Pre-Win95, I'd agree with you...but since then I hate to say it, but
MS has been producing more stable systems.
Windows95 == MacOS 87
...but
MacOS 99 == MacOS 87
MacOS really hasn't advanced much at all. Mac OS X will change that
and give Windows a major run for its money, but it isn't the
mainstream MacOS yet (AFAIK, only a "server" version is out?).
: With MAC, you got mushrooms, with Windows 286, 386, and 3.0, you were
: lucky to have you hard drive. Windows users had to make a regular habit
: of "autosaving" everything every 5 minutes, because the system could
: lock-up or GPF any time.
Try multi-tasking a Mac...it's ugly. Since Win95, Mac has been
surpassed. But again, OS X is in a great position to take back the
lead...big time.
: Windows NT is moderately stable as a workstation, but not as stable as
: Linux. NT doesn't like WinModems either.
Actually, NT had no problem with the builtin WinModem of my
ThinkPad. ...IIRC, Linux has no WinModem support at all.
But that's ok; WinModems are trash anyway and my ThinkPad is quite
happy running FreeBSD using a Ricochet wireless modem.
:> and is a damn fine, stable, and advanced OS that competes with anything
:> else out there.
:
: So far it hasn't done all that well. It didn't do as well as Win95, or
: Win98, or even NT 4.0. And for some reason, most of the software vendors
: aren't killing themselves to create new applications that truly exploit
: the features that make Windows 2000 reliable.
Well, Millennium(sp?) edition isn't out yet so non-business users
really don't have access to W2k yet (W2k Pro is intended as an NT4.0
upgrade, W2k Millennium is the Win98 upgrade). Until the mass
market has real access to the new system and new computers all start
shipping with W2k instead of Win98...most software venders really
have no reason to touch it.
>snip<
: Finally, the OEMs have problems of their own. The average user doesn't
: get much benefit from a CPU running faster than 700 MHz because the
: performance issues at that speed are centered around the hard drive, the
: video display (have to scroll slow enough that people can read the
: display).
Hard drives don't matter as much for most consumer systems; they
matter more for servers and things like video workstations. Video
display speeds currently are insanely fast, even for 3D. I'm not
sure what hardware you're talking about, but nearly any current
video card over $40 will get you fantastic performance. The only
time you'll have problems is at very high (>1600x1200) resolutions
and color depths (32bit), mainly because at those resolutions there
isn't enough memory left to double/tripple buffer.
: Where speed is critical - like servers, UNIX is still leading the game.
:
: Developing large scale solutions in an "all NT" environment is still
: a nightmere.
True and true.
>good points snipped<
: It also had an import/export problem too. Ever tried exporting a Word
: document to another format like WordPerfect? Not only don't they get it
: right, you can spend 30% of the time you spent creating the document on
: word trying to make it look pretty again.
Some would say...use PDF between systems and save yourself a lot of
pain. :-)
...I just wish PDF didn't have only one real vender... :-(
:> They now include many features as well as allow people bank online,
:
: I've been banking online using Qucken for about 6 years, via dial-up and 3
: years via internet.
I was "banking online" (electronic banking, really) with Bank of
America back in 1989, using an Apple //e and an Apple Modem 300
(BofA had 300 and 1200 baud dial up lines). IIRC, the system had
already been around for many, many years before I signed on in '89.
It was a terminal interface, in all caps and 40 characters wide (it
was originally built to be used via telx, IIRC), but it worked quite
well all things considered.
:> which is a very new innovation in the banking industry.
You're right...it's only over a decade old, probably older then the
PC itself. Banks have been around for hundreds (thousands?) of
years, so a decade is really only a "very" short time
ago...relatively...
>snip<
:> Shall I go on?
:
: This is entertaining, please do continue. I've read Microsoft's version
: of history. Pretty soon they'll be saying that they put Windows 2000 on
: the Altair in 1975.
Hehe...that kind of reminds me of a resume I read a few months ago.
The guy claimed he had "ten years experience using five different
PCs running Windows 98". It made my day. :-)
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
