Linux-Advocacy Digest #600, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods (Gary Morris)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:02:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:36:15 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul
2000
> >> [...]
> >> >> As I've stated myself on numerous occasions: if it's
truely
> >> >> portable "percieved market demand" is a piss poor
excuse.
> >> >
> >> >If porting to MIPS costs a cent more than what porting to MIPS
earns,
> >> >it's a perfectly good excuse. Just keep it portable, and do the
> >actual
> >> >port whenever making a port actually will earn you money.
> >>
> >> The only way to keep it portable is to port it.
> >
> >More or less. You can keep it fairly portable by being careful
>
> Also, having one codebase deployed on multiple platforms can
> be very useful in QA. Bugs that show up in subsequent ports
> tend to reflect problems in the original sourcecode base. I
> have seen this occur firsthand in a multi-unix shop and
> several game developers have claimed this to be the case for
> various cross platform projects.
>
> Besides, we're talking about Micro$oft here: they could bleed
> money for years to little ill effect.
That doesn't matter at all.
>
> [deletia]
>
> The excuse of "it costs too much" simply doesn't wash for
> MonopolySoft. It works for Be, but is simply absurd for
> the market's 800lb gorilla.
But that is not the excuse. Microsoft, as any publicly traded company,
has a duty to make as much money as possible. If the analysis they
make says porting to MIPS will lose money, then they won't port,
end of the story.
That's the only reasonable thing for them to do.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:11:09 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> I was very distraught, last year, to find a Sun workstation (Ultra 10, I
> believe) delivered with a *completely failed* hard drive. "This shit
> isn't supposed to happen," I thought, "its as bad as a PC!"
No vendor can be responsible for damage caused during shipping. Sorry,
that's just life.
> Which is, by the way, a good thing. Unix
> vendors are pie-in-the-sky arrogant elitist dweebs, generally clueless
> about the real power of personal computers,
Geeze . . . thanks. NOT! I mean, for heaven's sake, HP is one of the
top Wintel vendors now. . . and yes, we still sell Unix workstations
based on the HP PA-RISC chip.
> and they need to realize
> that not every computer is "mission critical" (and if the people
> implementing the computer have a clue, no computer ever is), and we'd
> rather not pay four to ten times the price so that it "never fails",
> when any failures which do occur are not cataclysmic or frequent.
I suspect that you haven't done the math. If you do, you'll soon
realize that the initial purchase cost is not the be all, end all of a
computer purchase.
Also, workstations are not built to high standards of quality so that
they never fail: they are built to high standards of quality to offset
much, much higher costs than that of the initial purchase price. I'll
leave it to you to research those costs.
> Yes,
> they're moving more towards open software themselves,
Moving?! Moved! Been there for some time. Unix is the most
standardized commercial, multi-vendor operating system in existence.
Given the source code, I can generally compile and use a huge number of
pretty-much-exactly the same programs on a very wide range of Unix
boxen. Try that with Windows. . . and the first problem you will run
into is that there *ARE* *NO* *OTHER* vendors of "Windows".
> and there is
> reason and value in proprietary computer hardware platforms (despite my
> trumpeting of the open PC standard as a revolution). But this is
> *UNIX*; none of them developed the stuff to begin with.
You do realize, don't you, that the cost of initial development is
trivial in comparison to maintenance costs? And your statement re:
"none of them developed the stuff to begin with" isn't one hundred
percent true, either.
> I doubt there's
> any *real* reasons why HP-UX is binary incompatible with much of Sun,
The real reason is this: HP-UX runs on PA-RISC. Solaris runs on SPARC.
As those processors implement different machine instruction sets,
therefore a Solaris binary is and will continue to be incompatible with
an HP-UX workstation based on the PA-RISC chip. And vice versa, of
course.
> and everything else is trivial to make easily changeable from one mode
> to another (command lines, other general attributes, for those who like
> the way one or the other does something). But have any of these vendors
> moved to promote competition by any conscious developments to enhance
> the customers ability to easily integrate or migrate between them? No,
> not to speak of.
That turns out not to be the case. A large amount of effort has gone
into making standards compliant systems. Open, public standards allow
users to migrate easily from one vendor to another, with the caveat
that, of course, their binary-only programs are processor specific.
Tell me, just how much has any other vendor done to promote competition
with ITSELF?
Just where can you buy a clone, or at least a partially interface
compatible version, of NT?
> If they're in the business of selling bullet-proof hardware, then they
> should compete on how bullet-proof their hardware is, and not whether
> the Unix admins are "Sun guys" or "HP guys".
Who says the competition *ISN'T* based on quality and performance?
> It makes more sense to adopt the ASP model (which you will think of as
> "just the X-terminal model"), but that uses a web browser instead of an
> X server.
Bad model. The Web browser should not be hacked into "yet another X
server", especially when the technology to do X already exists, and is
well tested.
> Not as demanding on the desktop, and much easier for the
> software developers.
On the other hand, your model of choice is slow, non-responsive, and a
lot heavier and more demanding on the desktop than you seem to realize.
Oh, yes, the X protocol could stand an upgrade, but low-bandwidth X
exists, and there is nothing to stop the market from introducing
extensions to the existing protocol, if that turns out to be the more
acceptable alternative. Certainly a re-write based on a higher level,
more abstract object oriented model would not go amiss, but turning away
from an interactive system to embrace a batch oriented system is a big
step backwards.
> It sucks worse then X-terms, yes. But X-terms suck worse than PCs with
> real client/server software.
That depends, of course, on how you choose to balance the books, and on
what factors you choose to ignore.
> That's the fault of the gurus in between, the admins, who are supposed
> to be cooperating with the computer operators, not trying to control
> data entry personnel. I guess they don't teach systems people in
> college that part of their job is going to be teaching some of that
> stuff to the end users out in the real world. We trashed the glass
> house years ago: wake up and smell the coffee.
Face facts. The Internet is bringing back the glass house. The
difference is in where the glass is placed.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:15:30 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Unless I said that, I didn't. I try very hard not to insinuate, so I
> apologize if I 'seemed to' be saying you were defending MS. I do
> believe you were defending Microsoft's position, and that unknowingly,
> not the company. By shifting blame for computers which don't work from
> the computers to those running them, and further pointing out that this
> is an assumption, because you have never seen a company that runs their
> computers well, you defend Microsoft's position as "most popular and
> therefore it must be OK, at least, if you know what you are doing."
>
This is such a load of crap. I never said any such thing. I do not
think that MS is OK. And I don't subscribe to that bullshit MS is a
monopoly and must remain a monopoly, because to be a monopoly they have
to produce a quality product theory either. I tend to think beyond
black and white though. For some people MS is OK. Maybe that's because
they haven't ever seen a system actually run with any stability or
whatever, but it works for them. I don't attack any positive statement
about MS, only statements that I know are false. Someone says that it
isn't possible to make an MS OS run with any stability, and I will say
it is possible, but not common. If that makes me an MS supporter in
your eyes, well, whatever. Personally I'm sick of MS and the crappy
software that I constantly have to support (where-ever I work I get to
support some idiot visitors laptop, or some dumbass calling me up
telling me that he does business with my company, therefore I owe him,
I'm in a wood working business for god sakes). I want MS to die just as
much as the next guy, but I'm not going to bullshit my way through life.
> Not deterministically, no. Does it sometimes get set up in such a way
> that it doesn't crash constantly? Of course. But that is not useful
> unless you can come up with some empirical specification for predicting
> which way is the "right" way to set up every instance so that it doesn't
> crash constantly. A simple and reasonable acknowledgement that this
> magic way is not necessarily the exact same way in all cases merely
> illustrates the difficulty of supporting your argument.
OK, nitpicking. I can live with that. Although I think it's a rather
easy tactic to take (I can find something wrong with any statement if I
look at it long enough), it's at least a valid one. I missed a few
points. I said I have seen Windows on machines that ran OK. I didn't
say that you can't ever tell whether the machine is going to run OK. In
theory, you should be able to set up a Windows network that runs fine.
Now, some Windows supporters say this actually happens. As I said, I've
never seen it happen. But I won't instantly say that everyone that says
it happens is full of shit either. I'm sure that if you actually had
someone in charge that knew what they were doing you could manage to set
up a network that would work. But, saying that it would work in this
case means getting crashing down to once per month instead of once per
day. This is the Windows best case. Not what I consider a solid
platform, but that is considered solid in the Windows world. I have a
network of 24 computers running Linux and BSD in the office and those
machines have never crashed (except for one user error, fixed quickly).
Six months without a reboot is better than one month. That is not to
say that it's perfect, but it's better.
I'm not trying to support MS's position. But, I'm not the type that
just goes out of his way to spew out crap against MS either. Sorry that
you see that as supporting MS's position. I say it's keeping an open
mind. One of my problems in the real world (and what allows me to write
good fiction at times) is the ability to see a situation from all
sides. It causes people around me to think I'm nuts (as I'm sure you do
at this point) because I can actually argue both sides of a debate.
Some say that's not healthy (mentally), but there are some things that I
refuse to see both sides of. This just isn't one of them. MS and it's
supporters occasionally stumble over a nugget of truth. And try as you
might, you cannot deny that one moment of truth. My position is as a
Linux/BSD/freenix supporter. I want to see them (the free unix-type
OSes) succeed. How do we do that? By constantly assessing others
around us (currently the largest of which is Windows). If I do see the
positive in something in Windows, perhaps I will find a way to
incorporate it into something I create, or point it out to another
developer. But dismissing everything MS has ever done isn't going to
help anybody but them. Ignore them and they will continue to grow.
Study them, and you may find something worth using yourself.
I realize I kind of meandered there. But that is what lead to my post.
Sometimes it sucks to have to say something positive about someone you
consider your enemy (or the alternative point of view), but you do it if
it's the truth.
>
> You are reading into my words. Perhaps you are being a bit defensive
> and having a knee jerk reaction to my criticism of your position. The
> only directly anti-MS thing I recall saying was something about Windows.
>
> >Just because I don't say MS sucks at every third word in my
> >posts doesn't mean I think they don't suck. It is possible to be
> >subtle. God, I really get sick of this. Anybody in the Linux camp that
> >sees someone that doesn't just scream what absolute crap shit MS is is
> >duped as a fucking MS supporting lackey. Great, pull the other one.
>
> I do not belong to a camp. I argue with the Linux guys as often as with
> the Mac guys. I argue against the Windows guys a lot more because there
> are more of them, and they tend to present the weakest arguments, much
> of them based on assumption. Perhaps I did over-generalize the case,
> and intimate that you were a Windows guy, since you were saying that it
> is possible to set up Windows or NT or whatever in such a way that you
> know in advance that it will not crash routinely. This is an
> unsupported assumption, I hope you'll agree, regardless of whether you
> support MS or not.
OK, I may have slipped a little in saying "it is possible" when instead
I should have said "in theory", but the fact is you will see a lot of
people saying that it happens. Some of them you can dismiss as being
fakers (by the lack of credible evidence or even knowledge of computers
in general) but some of them may be legit. I do know that one big
reason MS operating systems have so much problems is that they encourage
absolute computer illeterates to think of themselves as network
administrators because they can point and drewl (I know, I've seen it
happen). Is this the only problem MS has, absolutely not. I too have
seen the "random funny things" type of things happen in Windows. There
is no way to predict them. But there are ways to minimize them (don't
allow people to install/uninstall every demo they see, keep people
locked out of the control-panel, etc), but you can never fully eliminate
them. MS's position is that all problems in Windows are created by user
errors. You think I support this position, when what I said is some
problems are caused by user errors. Perhaps I didn't word what was in
my mind quite properly. If that is the case, I apologize. I just hate
being labeled a MS supporter. I'm a *nix guy through and through. And
nothing pisses me off more than someone saying that I should use a "REAL
OPERATING SYSTEM FROM MS". So believe me, I'm no MS supporter. Of
course, I say the occassional positive statement about them because I
believe in truth. Perhaps that's considered twisted in todays society,
but I'd rather have a few people around me see me as twisted than not be
able to sleep at night just so I can "fit in".
>
> >I have avoided MS software for the last five years. I've used it when I
> >have to. Believe it or not, I have been able to make it run on a couple
> >of machines without difficulty. Those machines were by far not the
> >"normal" MS behavior, but it happened. Am I supposed to deny that
> >happened at all just to support my personal belief that Linux is
> >better? Well, I won't. I don't lie just to serve my views up. I tell
> >the truth. If it hurts that bad, don't read it.
>
> Calm down. I wasn't attacking you, just your theory. That you've been
> able to set up MS software and that it didn't crash is not something I
> would suggest you're being dishonest in saying. That is true for a very
> large number of people. But my point was that you weren't really in
> control of whether this was the case with your systems; "normal" or not,
> each instance seems to have unique capabilities to either work or crash,
> without any apparent correlation, let alone deterministic predictive
> ability, possible. So you are not lying when you say that properly
> administering a PC with an MS OS will prevent it from crashing; you are
> merely mistaken.
>
Well, I said it was possible. I didn't flat out say that it will
prevent it. I said it's possible. I suppose I could have qualified it
with one of those, "It is possible, in theory, in a perfect
universe/clean room/MS supervised environment to make an MS OS run
properly". Is that better?:)
Seriously though, I don't think that Windows is as lousy as some people
try to claim. It is lousy in general, but it doesn't constantly crash
(compared to other OSes this could be arguable). I guess it's all a
matter of perspectives. I've tried to be fair to both sides of the
argument and apparently given the wrong impression. Forgive me for
trying to be impartial. I'll do better next time. :>).
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> [A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
> [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! =-----
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:06:12 GMT
In article <8kflas$eo1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) wrote:
> In article <8kfioi$qlf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The copyright law, in
> >principle, grants you no right, except the ones given by the license
> >itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Wrong. The right to copy and adapt the copy of a computer program
> you own as necessary to archive and use. (17 USC 117) The right to
> redistribute a copy that you own. (17 USC 109) The right to reverse
> engineer a program, including making any necessary intermediate
copies.
> (Found by courts to be a fair use under 17 USC 107) The right to
> make copies of unprotected expression, such as portions needed for
> interoperatbility. (17 USC 102b)
AFAIK, you never own a program you license.
And if you are not granted the right to use by the license, none
of those rights you mention exists, right?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:14:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:46:57 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
> >>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> > [...]
> >>> The GPL would only prevent it being used in one single
circumstance:
> >>> profiteering.[...]
> >
> >>Uh.... suppose the BSD TCP stack was GPL.
>
> This is a false strawman.
No, it's something much simpler, a hypothesis.
> Free Software doesn't have to use the GPL in particular in order
> to be copylefted. Infact, the vast majority of software of that
> kind is licenced under the LGPL.
So, what? I am making a hypothetical case.
> >>
> >>Now, suppose MS ported it to windows 3.11 and called it, say,
> >>winsock.dll.
>
> Nope, they would merely have to release their modified version
> of the sockets library under the same licence that they got
> bsd sockets under.
Not if they got it under the GPL, and they distribute it with their
system. Read the GPL, clause 3, as quoted in my previous message.
If you want to say that analysis of the license is wrong, do something
more than just say it. That's lazy. BTW: that very point has been
brought against KDE about it's usage of 3rd party GPL code and linking
to Qt. So, if you do mean what you wrote, then KDE has no license
trouble. Of course the FSF disagrees (I agree, though)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Gary Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.win2000.general,microsoft.public.win2000.new_user,comp.os.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:14:31 GMT
> Suck my dick!
As we rapidly advance the theory of civil discussion. Sounds like
someone's awfully insecure...
> Your Microsoft has been nipping their competitors in the bud,
> consumers need a better product that just what is available that
> sucks. Of course it look good, but do you know how inconvenience
> you're working a M$ Excel file or a Word file for more than 2 hours
> then suddenly you get BSOD you don't even have chance to save
> the file?
If you have that many objections to Windows and Office, use something
else. On the OS side, there's Linux, Apple, etc. For office suites,
you have Corel, Lotus or Sun StarOffice on Linux. Whose stopping you?
> How about companies like Sun Microsystem,
> Silicon Graphics and IBM, these companies makes supercomputers with
> their own UNIX flavor running in it. Can these companies will get
> chance to market in the desktops?
None of these companies has ever really tried, to my knowledge.
>
> As a computer end user I want more variety of desktop OS in the ?
> marketplace not such one you don't have any other choice.
See my previous comments.
Gary.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:21:09 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:03:36 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:45:02 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (void) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:11:36 -0400, Rick
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Hmmm.. then DOS was not (is not) a real OS, huh? in order to be a
>> >> >REAL
>> >> >OS you have to have pre-emtive multitasking huh?, Well, if I dont
>> >> >have a
>> >> >REAL OS on my mac, whats controlling it?
>> >>
>> >> Jedi answered this well.
>> >>
>> >> Allow me to take back my hasty statement. MacOS is a real OS; so is
>> >> DOS, to a lesser extent. What I should have said is this: any OS that
>> >> pretends to be "state-of-the-art" includes preemptive multitasking.
>> >
>> >If being "state of the art" is more important to you than getting your
>> >work done, then pat yourself on the back.
>> >
>> >It's called buzzword compliance.
>>
>> That is just a very lame copout to avoid the fact that what
>> the MacOS does wrong is a very well understood problem domain
>> and has been successfully solved since before MacOS existed
>> and has been solved adequately well on hardware (including the
>> overhead inherent in including a GUI) that MacOS itself has been
>> deployed on for over ten years now.
>
>
>And yet the Mac still meets the needs of millions of people, still
So did MSDOS using your standard of argumentation.
[deletia]
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:22:12 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:40:41 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
>
>> > overhead inherent in including a GUI) that MacOS itself has been
>> > deployed on for over ten years now.
>>
>> And yet the Mac still meets the needs of millions of people, still
>> provides better TCO and higher productivity than Windows.
>>
>
>And Jedi is advocating Windows?
For the likes of Joe, MacOS actually tends to be in my
recommendation list. Although, it is still lacking in
the "applications crash ~ OS crash" department.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:26:23 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:31:43 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:23:18 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >void wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:42:09 GMT, Joe Ragosta
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Except Macs--where things just work.
> >> >>
> >> >> Tell that to my friend, who bought an iMac and had a hard time
> >> >> getting
> >> >> his SCSI Zip drive to work over USB.
> >> >
> >> >You do realize, don't you, that SCSI and USB are two *ENTIRELY*
> >> >different busses!?
> >> >
> >> >I mean, they aren't even the same *CLASS* of bus! SCSI is a
> >> >*PARALLEL*
> >> >bus, while USB is a *SERIAL* bus (hence the name: Universal SERIAL
> >> >Bus).
> >>
> >> There are USB SCSI adapters. Pretty common on the Mac marketplace.
> >
> >Where in the original article did he specify he had a converter?
>
> Should he need to?
>
>
Well, would you expect to be able to plug a SCSI device into a USB port
on a PC without an adapter?
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:26:10 -0500
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Darren Winsper wrote:
> :>
> :> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:09:04 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> > Tim Palmer wrote:
> :>
> :> > > ...but LIE-nux has more hoals to plug.
> :> >
> :> > damn, you're dense.
> :>
> :> Neutron stars have nothing on Tim.
> :>
>
> : How about a black hole? You know, Timmy kind of sucks down anything of
> : any substance in the surrounding area, just like a black hole. Hmm, I
> : may be on to something (or on something)....
>
> Can't be a black hole. Nothing escapes a black hole, but even the
> simplest concepts escape Tim. I'm thinking he's more like a brown
> dwarf star:
>
> very dense, plenty of heat but no illumination whatsoever.
Heh, that's pretty good dude. You know, you're probably right.
Although I still think he sucks up anything of substance and just never
lets it back out again, where my black hole theory stemmed from. It's
like the black hole is somehwere deep in the back of his head. It sucks
all the informatin it can away from the actually processing centers of
the brain.
Although I still like your theory too. :)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
