Linux-Advocacy Digest #98, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Jun 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH! (2:1)
Re: BSOD in the airport (2:1)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (david raoul derbes)
Alpha vs Intel (Ben Chausse)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Michael Born)
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Chad Myers")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Craig Kelley)
The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south) (Jacques Guy)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Brian Langenberger)
The Trolls, oh The Trolls... (Christopher)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (abraxas)
Re: Why not West Papua ? was: Canada invites Microsoft north now we are really waya
way OT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 15 Jun 2000 15:47:21 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:46:23 GMT, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>It's really not a very good case on its merits. They only got this
>far because they shopped around for a judge that'd rubber-stamp
>whatever was put in front of him. It'll never stand up on appeal. The
>real question is whether the finding that MS is a monopoly will
>be overturned as well.
It's extremely difficult to overturn a FoF. And you'd need someone pretty
MS friendly to come up with conclusions of law favourable to MS given
Jackson's FoF ( MS's proposed conclusions of law basically disputed
the FoF )
What could be overturned is the remedy itself, and this is probably what
MS are planning to do.
>> The man also ignores the legal burden of a monopoly which is that it is
>> held to a higher standfard and that Judges define the facts of a case
>> such as what is an operating system.
>
>Some small questions:
>
>Do you think this kind of double standard is morally defensible?
Yes -- a monopoly has a lot of power and that power carries with it
responsibility. The point is that MS abused their monopoly power.
>Do you think it is beneficial to have the justice system making
>these kinds of product-design decisions under any circumstances,
>double standards or no?
I don't think that anyone's making "product design decisions", the debate
is about whether or not MS can arbitrarily extend their monopoly.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH!
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:47:55 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:09:31 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
> >I thought I would try Linux Mandrake 7.0's update. So, I fired up Kppp and
> >tried to connect to the internet. First attempt failed (hmmm... Windows has
> >yet to fail), second attempt got through.
>
> Typical.. It's amazing what the Linux users have to put up with. Kppp
> is variable, sometimes it loses my modem, sometimes my
> password,sometimes the DNS.
>
> Welcome to the braindead world of Linux.
Welcome to the braindead world of simon777!
If you don't like it and it doesn't work for you why are you still
running it. Hint.............
don't use it
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BSOD in the airport
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:57:06 +0100
Mikey wrote:
>
> If you are in the New Orleans airport, take a look at this column in
> concourse C that is supposed to have schedule information or something.
> It has a monitor with the Windows BSOD. It was blue-screened when I was
> leaving for Paris, and when I came back to New Orleans, I made a special
> trip before picking up my luggage to check, and it was *still*
> blue-screened.
>
> What an advert for M$
>
> --
> Since-beer-leekz,
> Mikey
> Exerciser of Daemons
I saw one of those touch screen public terminals (no keyboard) with a
"this computer has booted in to safe mode" message. I'm not sure how
they usually shut it down, but any attempt to reboot it lways left it in
safe mode.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
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?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:01:05 GMT
In article <jm325.3163$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> I would use different semantics but you're right and the other young man
>> is not making much sense. Bundling IS common for OS's like LINUX and
>> OS/2 and Windows but MS is NOT accused of bundling.
>
>I think it important to point out that way back at the begining of this
>case, they were accused of bundling. It was the DoJ's contention
>that IE was *not* really integrated into Windows, but was a separate
>product, and that is why they had demonstrations showing how you
>could remove it from Windows.
>
>You won't find that in the findings of fact, the conclusions of law, or
>the verdict because it just plain fell apart on even casual examination
>in court. The DoJ, not being utter fools, switched gears midstream, to
>a "predatory pricing" case, and that is what finally went through.
Gee, I've read a chunk of the Findings of Fact, and it seemed to me that
what Jackson was talking about was the tying of one product in which
MS had a legitimate monopoly, namely Windows, to another, namely Internet
Explorer, in which it did not have a monopoly. This, apparently, is
against the law.
I'm no lawyer, but this is my admittedly ignorant interpretation of the
part I've read.
>This is somewhat dissonant with their efforts to show that Windows
>is overpriced because MS selected the price rather than having one
>revealed from heaven or something, but it's still better than arguing
>that MS can't design products that users like. At least it gives
>the appearance of being for the benefit of consumers.
>
>It's really not a very good case on its merits. They only got this
>far because they shopped around for a judge that'd rubber-stamp
This is a very inaccurate portrayal of Jackson. One, he was appointed by
that famous left-wing fan of large government, Ronald Reagan. Two,
Jackson has a track record of being charitable towards corporations.
Three, he tried very hard to have MS reach a settlement with Justice
(appointing Richard Posner, a famously independent thinker, from that
bastion of left-wing thought, the University of Chicago.)
MS had to work *very* hard to lose this case so badly, and they performed
brilliantly.
>whatever was put in front of him. It'll never stand up on appeal. The
>real question is whether the finding that MS is a monopoly will
>be overturned as well.
>
>Our MS-bashing friends sometimes tell us that it cannot be overturned
>on appeal because it appears in the finding of fact. I wonder if the
>appeals court will think that Judge Jackson's interpretation of the
>Sherman Act counts as a 'fact' because it appears in this document.
>
>I don't think it's quite over yet.
This is true. Give it two, three years; less if Bush is elected.
>[snip]
>> The man also ignores the legal burden of a monopoly which is that it is
>> held to a higher standfard and that Judges define the facts of a case
>> such as what is an operating system.
>
>Some small questions:
>
>Do you think this kind of double standard is morally defensible?
>
>Do you think it is beneficial to have the justice system making
>these kinds of product-design decisions under any circumstances,
>double standards or no?
Hey, let's just swing for the fences: do you think the government has
any business enforcing antitrust laws? Me, I do. I think a fair number
of MS fans really don't want to acknowledge the possibility that some
business practices are, in fact, illegal.
It is precisely because Jackson does *not* want the government to tell
MS on a day to day basis what they can put into the OS that he wants to
split 'em up. Believe it or not, the split is the *least* invasive thing
the government can do to prevent MS from breaking the law.
The MS apologists are having a tough time facing the facts: Jackson was
their kind of judge. That he became so disaffected must tell you something
about the geniuses running Microsoft.
David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
------------------------------
From: Ben Chausse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,linux.redhat,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Alpha vs Intel
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:01:34 GMT
Hi,
I build a Intranet WebServer on Linux with Apache 1.3.12, mod_perl 1.49
and PHP4 and I would like to know what will the best between a server
with 2x667 MHZ Alpha Processer and a 4x700 MHZ Xeon Processer ??
Also, except the 64-bits, what's the big difference between Alpha and
Intel CPU ?
Thanks ...
Ben0iT
------------------------------
From: Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:03:10 GMT
Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact taking over.
BTW, the 2nd link is funny as hell.
Mike
John Hughes wrote:
> As the number of Linux users BOOMS to 0.3%. Is Linux taking over??!!
>
> http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/systemos.html
>
> http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.html
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:00:35 -0500
You know you've hit the big time when you've made that
giant leap from 0.2% to a whopping 0.3%.
Congrats!
-Chad
"John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7t625.2215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As the number of Linux users BOOMS to 0.3%. Is Linux taking over??!!
>
> http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/systemos.html
>
> http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.html
>
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 Jun 2000 10:02:24 -0600
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:12:58 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone know the dates?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >According to www.x.org the first commercial version of Xwindows was released in
>1986.
> >
> >Gary
>
> The first version of Windows was written in 1983.
... but you couldn't buy it until almost 1986.
Gates' 1984 Comdex pranks were laughed at the next year, when Windows
*still* wasn't out.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:19:42 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south)
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[snip]
I have had a look at the few other posts that
appeared at the same time as this from Tholenbot.
It *is* a bot.
Once upon a time, on soc.culture.europe, there
used to be a certain Hasan B. Mutlu. Any mention
of "Turkey" would be promptly answered with a
quote of the beginning of the original post,
followed by a lengthy lecture, randomly
drawn from his database of such lectures, about
how the Armenians genocided the Turks. Someone
asking about the traditional turkey of American
thanksgiving so aroused the interest (ire?) of
the Mutlu bot. One week, the Mutlu bot managed
to post half a megabyte (I used to keep weekly
statistics, which I'd post on soc.culture.europe)
They don't have much to do at Cornell. Or, if they
are testing the von Neumann hypothesis, their
AI research has a long way to go before they
rediscover Eliza.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 15 Jun 2000 16:21:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: UNIX is very good at shuffelling text aroumd. LinoNuts call
: that "powerfull". I call it
: "pointless".
HTML and email are text. As is usenet and IRC. Thus, I think practically
everyone on the internet would disagree concerning the usefulness of
text.
: However, doing annything else with UNIX is a chalange. It's not fast
: enough to be any kind
: of server,
The fastest supercomputer in the world runs UNIX.
http://www.sandia.gov/ASCI/Red/
: so if you realy want to shuffel text around and then send it out to
: Windows 2000
: sevrer where it can be axcessed by users, you still nead 20 UNIX
: boxes just to keep up with the
: servor. You can save the money you would spend on the 20 UNIX boxes
: (and the days it would take
: just to figure how to make it shuffall text and send it to Windos)
: just by doing everyting on
: the Windos 2000 server.
Looks like you've mistaken Windows and UNIX again.
Here's a hint: UNIX runs on the 64+ processor boxes, Windows does not.
: You can barely do anything with graffics in UNIX.
I'll tell all those SGI Workstation users that.
And the renderers for Titanic, the Matrix, etc.
: The Gimp is a joke when you compare it to Adobe
: PhotoShop (by it and see for yourself if your not to chepe),
PhotoShop 5.5 is about $600. If one has that kind of cash to throw
around, one can easily set up a dedicated box for it for a little more.
: or even a good LOGO interporator.
: And if you do anything with grafix, you can only save a JPEG or PNG
: (forget GIF's!
GIFs max out at 8 bits of color and 1 bit of transparency.
PNGs can have 24 bit color and 8 bits of alpha channel (IIRC).
The only reason one would want a GIF is to do rudimentary animations.
: their
: "pollitacolly incorrect", like everything ealse that doesn't work on UNIX!)
: and immbedding or
: intergrating anything is a no-no (un-P.C. again), so you halve to have the
: text in one file and
: the graficks in another fial, or use HTML (another joke excuse for what
: you can do in Windows
: with Office, or even WordPad, and the text and graffix still half to be
: in different fials),
: and NO ANIMATIONS OR ANYTHING THAT CANT BE REPARSENTED BY TEXT OR A BITMAP!!
Maybe you aught to visit the World Wide Web sometime. That whole
"keeping graphics and text separate" thing hasn't posed a problem.
: So what is UNIX good four? Prettending its' the 1970s, i gess. Look mommy,
: I'm the Sysadmin! You
: can be my user. Type "elm" if you wan't to rede your e-mial, e-mails you
: write get sent once a
: week thru UUCP, and look at this it's real kewl! If you want to chat,
: with the other users you
: can type "write", but you'll always be the only user logged in anyway.
: Oh, and the CD drive,
: sound card, scanner, printer, modem, graffics card, and floppy drive
: arent' working annymore
: like they did when we had Windoas, but thats' only because they were
: all propietrary and bad
: and stuff. We just half to get new ones, thats' all.
It takes a special breed of stupid to keep posting this crap over
and over again for our collective amusement. With advocates like
these for Windows, I don't think it needs any detractors.
------------------------------
From: Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Trolls, oh The Trolls...
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:32:50 +0100
They talketh a lot of Trollocks......
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 15 Jun 2000 16:41:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Next: find the relevant paragraph in the TOD where it says "not laptops"
>> http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/library/rainbow/5200.28-STD.html
> Elementary, Watson ...
> Fundamental Computer Security, Policy:
> Requirement 3. Individual subjects must be identified.
> Requirement 4. Audit information must be selectively kept and protected
> so that actions affecting security can be traced to the responsible party.
> Requirement 6. The trusted mechanisms that enforce these basic requirements
> must be continously protected against tampering and/or unauthorized changes.
> While req. 3 can, to some extent, potentially be done on laptops, reqs 4
> and 6 clearly can't. When the laptop is being used as a portable computer,
> not as a PHB's typewriter, that is ...
Andres wins!
:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not West Papua ? was: Canada invites Microsoft north now we are
really waya way OT
Date: 16 Jun 2000 02:25:32 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<stan> writes:
>Lets make it to US $0.02 worth being AUD $0.028
You don't really follow financial news, do you? It's been a long time since
the Aussie dollar was anywhere near US$0.70 (as would be indicated by the
above numbers). Currently, it seems to be quite convincingly below US$0.60,
meaning that $US0.02 is about A$0.035. Sad but true ;-)
Bernie
--
When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment
results
Calvin Coolidge
US President 1923-29
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 15 Jun 2000 17:56:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I'm not gonna tell you. Nobody here's gonna tell you.
Aw go on! I wanna know!
>We're really
>much more advanced than you think. The distro's are actually about 6
>months behind on the latest tech Linux can offer. We have a 3D-GUI. We
>have eye-movement control, brain contr...(Oops, did i just say too
>much?)
Aliens!
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:02:16 -0500
My god, I think MS is finally desperate enough to buy babies to write
into the advocacy groups. The least they could do is teach the little
shits how to spell.
Oh yeah, and while I'm at it, that scalability comment is just plain
wrong. Until you show me NT running on everything from a PalmPilot to
the S/390, then I don't want to hear about how scalable it is.
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> I'm glad you aggree with me.
>
> ..untill the user decides to get new preriphrael.
>
>
> ..with the healp of OS/390 it scales. Otherwise it's pittyful at scaleing and NT
>blows it out
> of the water..
>
>
> Yeah. /dev/ttyS? for the modam (insted of sellectign it by name), lpr to print (and
>by god it
> better by a PostScript printer), and about 10,000 one-function programs so you can
>shuffal text
> around in 1,000,000 ways and still not manage to do anything useful.
>
> So it can shuffel text in more ways or less ways, on a whole computer or haff of one.
>
> >
> You better be abal to do better than The GIMP.
>
> >
> .and bloated as hell.
>
>
> X is a resource hog.
>
> Until X crashes UNIX (my bad.. untill it crashes the console, which makes it just as
>useless).
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
