Linux-Advocacy Digest #858, Volume #26 Sat, 3 Jun 00 13:13:15 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why UNIX Rocks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. (abraxas)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (abraxas)
Re: Multi-cultural Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story" (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (poldy)
Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails (Gary Hallock)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Jim Richardson)
Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story" (JEDIDIAH)
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why UNIX Rocks
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 16:31:19 GMT
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 07:17:03 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Dad would say:
>> >On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 20:02:12 -0700, pac4854
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <8h719a$oge$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>wrote:
>> >>>Like most Westerners they afraid of the things they do not
>> >>>understand.
>> >>
>> >>This is probably the most interesting part of your post. One
>> >>thing I think many advocates tend to forget, whether they are
>> >>advocating Microsoft or some other American based corporation, is
>> >>that there is not an overwhelming universal love for the United
>> >>States and its megamonopolistic corporations. Quite the
>> >>opposite. The United States is viewed by much of the rest of the
>> >>world as greedy, untrustworthy, amoral, and unethical. And for
>> >>good reason. So now we have Linux, an international,
>> >>collaborative effort, without backing by the evil empire that is
>> >>the U.S. No wonder it grows and grows. Not only is it not
>> >>Microsoft, its not U.S. in origin, and not U.S. controlled.
>> >>Matter of fact, it's totally uncontrolled by any governmental
>> >>entity. Which makes it universally appealing, while Microsoft is
>> >>almost universally despised.
>> >>
>> >
>> >M$ != US. I use FreeBSD which is of US origin. Does that make me or the
>> >users, developers, etc of FreeBSD greedy, amoral, unethical, and
>> >untrustworthy?
>> >Bash MS all you want, most BSD folk can't stand them either, but keep the
>> >political rants in alt.yourcountry.sucks
>>
>> It may be unfair to characterize all things United-Statesian as being
>> bad; that does not disprove that the fact that Linux is of "foreign
>> extraction" _is_ found attractive.
>
>You are mostly deluding yourself. While the Linux kernel is not of
>american origin, almost every other major OS component is. The C/C++
>compiler, GNU tools, etc. Last time I checked, Richard Stallman (founder
>of GNU, without which Linux would be nothing) was still an american.
...however, he is still willing enough to completely share his
work such that the end result could be a purely 'French' or
'Chinese' or 'Korean' product.
[deletia]
Plus, as RMS often laments, GNU isn't given nearly enough credit
for being at the core of Linux. So, Linux is still percieved as
the end result of some disatisfied student in Helsinki and a
worldwide collaboration.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: 3 Jun 2000 16:36:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8gvj69$1lhp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Let me leave you with something to keep your eye out for, cause it's the
>> > next better thing: Blackcomb
>>
>> Uh huh. I remember the last 'black' better thing--blackbird. I was
>> part of a testgroup for that project, and it was the finest thing
>> microsoft had come up with EVER. It would have quite literally changed
>> the world.
>>
>> And it never made it past our group.
>>
> claiming that your group was responsible for killing blackbird?
Thats not what I said. Youre making stuff up again, dresden. It never
made it past my group because of a number of reasons, one of which was
our bucking against their refusal to develop it for operatings systems
other than windows95.
> See, you cannot hide from your lies.
I see. Ahem.
> Looks, it's really simple, you say there is a difference between what you
> call "NT5" and "W2K" - I say W2K IS NT5. MS says W2K is NT5. Now, document
> your claim? You spouted your BS first and I have just repeated tried to call
> you on it. DOn't try to twist this and just be the usual chump you are.
> Answer the question: How is NT5 not W2K, other than in name.
Answer this question dresden, once again:
If they are the same, why wasnt it released two years ago?
You are a lying fool dresden. A complete idiot. I'm surprised anyone pays
you to do anything with computers at all, because god knows when they find
out how incredibly dumb you actually are, your little world will crumble
around you.
And my replies are not worth responding to?
You cannot answer my questions dresden, because youve lied yourself into
a corner and youre too stupid to find your way out.
Pathetic.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:31:35 -0400
hey 5x3 - post any one of those things and you'll actually be worthy of
being anything less than the slime you are.
now I realize why i'm the only one back and forth with you, everyone else
has you kill filed already. And knowing where you work now and someone you
work with, I know more fully understand the problems you live with and what
it must do to your very young mind.
don't worry, with proper medication and attention, even you might resume a
normal life one day.
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8h8ooe$pgc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8h8ljt$pgc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8h8f52$pgc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > boil this down:
> >> >>
> >> >> > tell us the difference between NT5 and W2K - prove it any way
you'd
> >> > choose.
> >> >> > There is not a person in MS who'd claim W2K isn't called NT5
> >> > internally -
> >> >> > and then there is you.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah, youre at it again, dresden. You cannot back yourself up, you
have
> >> >> no idea what youre talking about, and yet you still try to point the
> >> >> finger ANYWHERE but at yourself.
> >>
> >> > No, please, do tell us the differences between NT5 and Win2k.
>
> > Still waiting. Presumably you can't do it, since despite numerous
claims to
> > be able to, the "evidence" remains unknown.
>
> >> >> > Let's see that diff? your claim, not mine. Prove it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Since we're playing this game dresden: I asked you first.
> >> >>
> >> >> You tell ME. Its not terribly difficult---even for someone who
doesnt
> >> >> have all the alleged contacts that you do inside microsoft.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then again, with the average 24 month coder churn at microsoft, they
> >> >> probably wouldnt know, now would they?
> >>
> >> > Sure, there are no differences except the name.
> >>
> >> Ill say this again, once again, very slowly so that you can be sure to
> >> understand:
> >>
> >> If W2K is exactly the same as NT5, why wasnt it publically released
until
> >> two years later?
>
> > Perhaps because it wasn't finished ? I was using NT5 betas 2 years ago,
> > they weren't even close to being done.
>
> Very good young man! Now, why dont you impress the class even further
> by telling it what kernel module and header revisions were presented,
> denied, altered, represented, accepted and implemented?
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 3 Jun 2000 16:37:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian:
> Rethink something you think you know (then look up the details to see I'm
> right):
> Any NT system can be C2 certified, the only changes required are in
> software, not hardware.
Wrong. You do not understand what C2 certification means, which is not
surprising, since you do not understand linux kernel numbering, SU, the
difference between NT5 and W2K kernels, and very likely how to tie your
own shoes.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Multi-cultural Linux
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 16:33:29 GMT
On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 05:26:48 GMT, CAguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 3 Jun 2000 03:42:59 GMT, Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>As an example from home (my home), in Wales we have NO
>>marketable operating (or GUI, to be precise) capable of being remotely
>>Welsh-language-friendly. Microsoft have refused to do
>>anything serious for Welsh because it is a minority language
>>spoken by only a few hundred thousand people, and there
>>is no money to be gained from such a development.
>>
>>Linux offers people from a diverse range of cultures
>>the opportunity to adapt computing to their local
>>needs - linguistic, cultural etc. I think this is
>>fair analysis.
>>
>>It is, however, unfortunate that the politicians in this
>>country are so many years BEHIND the times. They
>>and other mock-radical political groups waffle endlessly
>>about the "struggle" to get Microsoft to adapt their products for
>>the local language.
>>
>>If only these people realised their energies could be directed
>>more productively by 'adopting' linux - as many countries,
>>cultural groups have - and ensuring that it fits in with
>>their local needs (something the market - MS etc - doesn't
>>always succeed at doing).
>>
>
>Well, start a business selling Linux distros adapted to your
>native language...Capitalism!..isn't it great.
>
>I sure hope you're not waiting for your 'politicians' to come
>up with some offical OS...THAT surely would be a failure..
...or better yet, make a big stink about this aspect of
Linux among those groups of Welsh that most care about
maintaining a national identity and would have the skills
to help work on such a project.
Does anyone know if there is a Basque version of Linux yet?
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:36:35 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 2 Jun 2000 21:04:15 -0500, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <NeXY4.1007$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Are you $#$#@#$& insane? I really hope your kidding. Please tell me you
> >> are.
> >> I mean come on, your talking out of your bunghole.
> >> I guess this is just a trolls bait, and I took it... but anyway if you
> >> really beleive that
> >> you are a complete ignoramous.
> >> Come on, I dare you to say it, Windows 2000 is faster than Windows 95.
Do
> >> you
> >> have half a brain in your head?
> >
> >I've got Win2000 Server and Win98se on the same machine here. PII 400,
> >192 megs ram. Win2000 Server is *much* more responsive as a desktop OS
>
> It needs 192 megs of ram? THAT IS PATHETIC!
>
did he say needs? He just happens to have that much... given todays prices,
it's not at all unusual. I'm sitting on a dual piii700 with half a gig of
ram cause it's so cheap to do so, not cause I have to. nothing MAKES me do
anything, I just do cause i want to (limited by I can).
We initially tested W2K Pro beta 3 on a Celeron 333a with 64 then 96 megs of
RAM. It ran faster than Win98SE on that same machine running Office 97sr2 -
we benchmarked the hell outta it and W2K was faster, period. And stayed that
way to release, improving once at RC2 when a video driver was updated.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story"
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 16:40:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> That's the funniest part of this whole Linux movement, and it is a
> movement, they keep changing the rules as you go along depending on
> the discussion.
>
> Example:
> Answer #1:Linux is as easy to use as Windows when using a gui.
> Answer #2: Do you want someone (Linux) to do everything for you?
>
> You will get either or of the above answers depending upon which point
> of Linux you make a suggestion about.
>
Same thing if you're a windows user. Some stuff is easy under Windows,
other stuff is nearly impossible to configure under Windows. Some users
are newbies, they have troubles all the time. Some users are advanced,
they still have troubles on occasion. It doesn't matter which OS you're
talking about.
>
> They march to a completely different drummer than the typical office
> running Windows.
>
That's right!
>
> "Best" if you are a programmer, willing to dedicate your life to
> figuring out how they want you to perform simple tasks.
>
And these programmers waste their efforts making things easy for
unappreciative, nay, scornful, idiots.
Chris
------------------------------
From: poldy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 16:40:11 GMT
In article <8habtb$2rt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, javelina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>MS dying would be a minor speed bump for the economy. Just
>because MS dies tomorrow, doesn't mean the products you
>bought from them die as well. As they fail, they get
>replaced, probably by Unix/Linux. There would be a gradual
>turnover.
Some people have made arguments that Windows is an "essential facility"
like the dial tone. These kinds of arguments are used to support the
regulation of MS and the open-sourcing or making Windows public domain.
Ironically, Gates has talked about "Wintone."
If MS went out of business, would their SW stop working? Companies will
continue to write Windows SW for a long time. Former MS employees will
form companies to either continue developing Windows or at least support
it and market service contracts, upgrades, bug fixes, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 12:39:51 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
Drestin Black wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8guur9$633$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If you read the article as you have asked US to do, you would find that
> > Linux care had MANY management problems. Lack of commitment to OSS was
> > just one of the MANAGEMENT problems and does NOT reflect on Linux as a
> > whole. The same is true foe MS, which uses Unix in it manufacturing
> > process!
>
> care to document that last part? I know you can't but I'd like to see you
> wriggle around...
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP
Care to wriggle out of that, Drestin?
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 16:40:48 GMT
"Bill Godfrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> How does a C++ compiler acheive inlining across compilation
> units?
>
> Perhaps you could show me. Here are my two functions from earlier
> as two separate C code files...
> ------ f1.c ------
> int f1(int a)
> { return a+28; }
> ------ f2.c ------
> extern int f1(int a);
>
> int f2(int a)
> { return f1(a)+4; }
> ------ END -------
>
> If I compiled these two files into .o files and linked them,
> I would get code for two separate funtions.
>
> Please translate these two files into C++, turn f1() into an
> inline function, and still have the two functions as separate
> compilation units.
Like so:
-- f1.c --
#include "f1.h"
// this file isn't really needed, but by golly,
// if you want two compilation untis, you'll
// get two!
-- f1.h --
inline int f1(int a)
{ return a+28; }
-- f2.c --
#include "f1.h"
int f2(int a)
{ return f1(a)+4; }
It isn't magic; it doesn't ask the linker to do inlining
between .o files. You'll recall that I did not say that this
would happen. What it does is present the function body
in the header file, and provide a keyword that means
'inline this you fool'.
You can approximate this in C by declaring the function
'static' not 'inline' in this header file, and presenting the
body there as I have done. This gives the compiler the
opportunity to inline it, but still does not give you any way
to suggest that it *should* he inlined.
It also changes the semantics slightly; there is just one
"f1" object in my C++ example, even though it is defined
in each translation unit. Change "inline" to "static"
and suddenly there are many. For this simple function,
this does not matter at all; you could only detect it by
taking the function's address.
I think, however, that there are cases where it makes a difference:
If I say:
inline int countomatic()
{
static int counter=0;
return counter++;
}
There should be exactly one counter globally; change that
to "static int countomatic" and there is one per translation unit.
Technically speaking, just slapping hte keyword 'inline' on any
function declaration tells the compiler to inline it if it can;
but this is useless; if you don't provide the function body in
the header file, it has no change to doing so in practice.
> Use as many C++isms as you like. I just need the faster code found
> through inlining, and still have separate compilation units.
I suspect what you are demanding by separate compilation units
are not multiple *source files*, but multiple object files. However,
this is not what I was trying say.
> If I am wrong, I shall go into comp.lang.c hell, by volunteering
> to be the "void main" spotter for a month.
:D
Dang. I wouldn't condemn my word enemy to that one!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 3 Jun 2000 16:41:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Solaris is B2able. AIX is B1able. VMS is B1able. None of these
> operating
>> systems are secure to this extent without massive hardware and software
>> contingencies, period.
>>
>> And neither is NT.
> B1able without hardware changes? True true.
NT isnt B1able at ALL, dresden. Care to explain to the class exactly why?
> Ahhhhhhh - your mistake. Unlike other OSes, NT is able to reach C2
> certification withOUT any changes to hardware; i.e., any box that will run
> NT4 can be made C2 certified. Get it? Dont' believe it? Go read the report:
> http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html - read
> the detailed 193 page PDF and you'll find NO hardware changes. You are wrong
> again.
I'm amazed. I'm really truly amazed. You must have gotten your MCSE out
of a cereal box.
> No, you are wrong. and I have posted a link to prove it - unlike you who
> just harrasses without any proof
Your stupidity has actually brought a tear to my eye, dresden.
>> Wrong. It is only C2 certified with a very specific vendor's very
>> specific hardware. You dont know what youre talking about.
> Wrong again, Yes, to have actual piece of paper it would have to detail that
> specific configuration HOWEVER to meet C2 certification you just need
> software changes, NOT hardware.
I see.
>>
>> > Unforunately, since neither the government
>> > nor MS have unlimited funds, they only tested the configurations that
>> > needed to be tested.
>>
>> You just made that up.
> HAHAHHAAH - comin from you? the ultimate make up BS artist? hahaha
Hahaha.
>> You're a liar, you have no idea what youre talking about, youre pathetic
> and
>> youre very, very stupid. I'll bet youre in someones IT department, arent
> you.
> From someone who thinks "IT" is funny - that is hilarious. No, abracadbra,
> you've been proven wrong at every turn and yet you continue to troll, go
> home and suck straws...
Suck straws?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:50:22 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 30 May 2000 16:55:25 -0400,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:25:57 -0400, Drestin Black
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> No version of any microsoft software has ever been as fast as the
>previous
>> >> version.
>> >
>> >
>> >What?! WHAT?!! are you on drugs??
>> >
>> >EVERY version of MS software I can think of is faster than the previous.
>Can
>> >you name a specific issue of a new version slower than a previous
>version? I
>> >can't think of a single one!
>> >
>>
>> windoze 3.1 vs. 95 vs. 98 vs. nt vs. W2K.
>>
>> All were slower than the prior version.
>
>and your proof?
>Because W95 was definately faster than 3.1 and 98 was definately faster than
>95
Not on the same H/W
What was the min recommended H/W for win3.1 vs w95?
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story"
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 16:40:19 GMT
On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:27:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 07:50:20 GMT,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (sandrews) wrote in <39386CA5.DBD2C3C6
>>@computelnet.com>:
>>
>>>Like I told you before, and I`ll say it again what you say
>>>pegs my Bullshit Meter.
>>
>>And as I said before your Bullshit meter is so broken.
>
>Of course it is, running under Linux most likely.
>
>>>I looks like all you want is for someone to do everything for you.
>>>Yep, just sit on your ass, do nothing and wait and make excuses.
>>
>>Why not, since everyone is claiming is _the_ system I should use.
>
>That's the funniest part of this whole Linux movement, and it is a
>movement, they keep changing the rules as you go along depending on
>the discussion.
No, we're just not a hegemony. Different distinct individuals
will have wildly varying opinions on certain situations.
[deletia]
>>>The Open Source Developers owe nothing to anyone. They do as they
>>>please.
>>
>>And up the rest of us, huh? Do they want to repeat the mistakes of the
>>past, is that it? Do they every listen to anyone else other than
>>themselves?
>
>They march to a completely different drummer than the typical office
>running Windows.
Certainly. They have an awareness of their needs that is more
complex than 'must be dos compatible'.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: 3 Jun 2000 16:42:40 GMT
Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8h8jrn$a3m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: > : "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > : news:8h8a35$917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > : > Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > : >
: > : > : "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > : > : news:8h4anc$n3p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > : > : > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : In article <8gv4el$r9a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Piers B."
: > : > : > : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : > You ignoramus,
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > Who do you think helped IBM and Apple in the eighties ( re
: 80's
: > : for
: > : > : > : > those who have literacy problems)???? IBM and Apple wouldn't
: have
: > : > : > : > been the companies they were if it wasn't for Microsoft.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : IBM could have found another company to provide DOS. Microsoft
: was
: > : but
: > : > : > : one of many companies producing productivity software for the
: Mac.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Who? What other operating systems could they had chosen from?
: > : >
: > : > : CPM/86 was either available or nearly available, for instance.
: Writing
: > : a
: > : > : command line OS with DOS's "features" isn't exactly rocket science.
: > : >
: > : > And who owned CP/M? IDR, that's who. And who turned IBM away? IDR,
: > : > that's who. So, now I ask you, where else could IBM had acquired an
: OS in
: > : > very little time, besides SCP?
: >
: > : You're extrapolating folklore. IDR turned away IBM at first due to
: IBM's
: > : rather scarey looking NDA. But very shortly later, IDR reconsidered but
: > : Microsoft already got its lucky break and had purchased from a third
: party
: > : what basically amounted to a pirated copy of the source of CPM/86 for
: $50k.
: >
: > "Pirated"? I hardly think so. Tim Patterson, QDOS's author stated that
: > he had used a CP/M manual as a guide for coding QDOS.
: Oh well there you go, the guy who allegedly pirated the code says he didn't.
: Case closed. Forget about Gary Kildal's position on the matter...
Like I said in another thread:
What you "think" means all of two things, jack and shit. What you can
"prove" means everything in a debate.
Either prove what you're saying, or stop blithering.
: > [other baloney snipped]
: Oh I like that. Other material you are ignorant of is now "baloney".
Again, prove it. I suspect that you can't.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 3 Jun 2000 16:42:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8h8j32$6bu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Adam Ruth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : If I'm not mistaken (and I'm not), the NT network services are not C2
>> : certified. NT is only C2 certified on a standalone system. You got a
>> : network? You ain't C2 certified. I was embarrased by this fact a
> couple of
>> : years ago in a debate with an NetWarian who shot me down in my high and
>> : mighty attitude.
>>
>> It also requires a specific computer configuration (Compaq?) also, IIRC.
>> No operating system can be certified, only a complete system.
>> So, in reality, NT is not and cannot be C2 certified.
> NT itself cannot be, no OS can.
Actually, both solaris and aix can. But thats because theyre built to run
on proprietary hardware, and both trusted solaris and certed aix come in
a box that way. No patching needed.
Idiot.
> But, unlike many others, any NT system can
> be made to reach C2 certification through SOFTWARE only (nothing 3rd party
> either).
Uh huh.
=====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
******************************
