Linux-Advocacy Digest #630, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? (Jacques Guy)
Re: C# is a copy of java (mlw)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("David Petticord")
Re: Windows98 ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Why use Linux? ("1$Worth")
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451739 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Help with printer (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux code going down hill ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451739 (tinman)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: SPECweb99 results ("Bobby D. Bryant")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:23:52 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> As for producing code for the community, will this pay my bills? Will this
> help me with my mortgage? Can I buy a car off the proceeds of any software
> I give away for free? Hmmm???
Right now you are airing your opinions to the community, at great cost
in time to yourself. Does this pay your bills? Does this help you with
your
mortgage? Can you buy a car off the proceeds of any of those of your
opinions which you are not only giving away for free, but paying for
the privilege of giving away? Hmmm???
Or perhaps it does. Who knows.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:28:47 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nitpicking time. That sample is not C it is C++. ;-)
>
While there is religious debate on each side, I don't really care to
make a distinction. People will flame about this, but seriously, who
cares. C++ is just C with some more features like classes and templates,
and that's how I use it. I am more productive than the C purists that
have to re-invent the object/class wheel for each project (think GTK),
and my code is more efficient than the C++ purists that objectify
everything regardless if a modular approach makes more sense.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:18:46 GMT
In article <8kic9g$sqj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<random snips>
> How is this for an incomplete sentence including typos!
Use a question mark after all questions, even if they are in
declarative form.
> And the printed book "Running Linux" (3rd Edition mind you) has
typos..
An ellipsis consists of three spaced periods, with one space before and
after each period. An ellipsis at the end of a sentence includes an
extra period. Some style guides omit the spaces.
> --- I mean really,, what a bunch of retards! You all spent so much
time
You should never follow a comma with another comma.
> geeking that you never acquired spelling and grammar skills? Well..
If you again meant to use an ellipsis as a separator, an ellipsis
consists of three spaced periods.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:30:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Maybe its just a difference of perspective, but I think my perspective
>> is a larger one. I will not draw lines and say "well, that's someone
>> else's screw-up".
>
>The more I think about this the more it pisses me off. You really think
>you have a larger view of things?
Yes. Why does that piss you off? I have a disadvantage in every
specialty, and that doesn't piss me off when I talk to specialists. So
why does my saying that I am a generalist, and maintain a broad focus
which they are unable to do, piss them off?
> Then why do you insist that you are
>the only person in the entire world that can possibly understand how
>difficult it is to administer Windows?
I didn't say that, did I? In fact, if anything, I'm saying that I
have a potentially unique understanding of how *easy* it is to
administer Windows. But a clarity on the matter of how likely that is
to avoid instability.
>No matter how many times other
>people say it, if there is even the slightest nod of respect towards
>Microsoft you are on the attack.
Nonsense. I've given nods of respect to Microsoft's software (which I'm
sure is what you mean; the company deserves no respect, you'll agree) on
occasion, myself. My standard ammo along these lines is there
integration of the keyboard with the GUI. Not perfect, but unmatched by
all alternatives so far.
>Say what you will, but Windows does
>occassionally work. That doesn't mean it works perfectly or that you
>can predict when it will work, but it does on occasion.
But Unix works, AND you can predict when it will work, for the most
part. Even Macs, you can predict far better (though being on a
different platform makes this a dubious comparison). Windows fails
often in comparison to alternatives. We all agree on this. All I'm
doing is pointing out that the *majority* of those failures are
essentially random, or at least non-deterministic. I'm not the only one
to ever notice or comment on this. I'm just the only one I know of that
can *explain* it.
>As for your implication that I am dodging my responsibilities: FUCK YOU!
Pardon me. I think I said you were "passing the buck", or blaming
someone else for your problems, not dodging responsibility, exactly.
>If there is one thing I absolutely will not tolerate it is false
>accusation. I am not blaming anyone but myself for my problems.
Yea; you blame yourself for not administering Windows correctly. But
now you're blaming yourself for someone else *causing* your problems.
>I am
>not blaming anyone but MS for MS's OS problems.
Why not? You can blame the users, for putting up with it. You can
blame the OEMs, for allowing it. You can blame the government, for not
shutting down the original per-processor monopoly in the mid-80s.
There's plenty of influence on the issue which isn't Microsoft's,
directly. But, you know, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
>Now, I will say that
>there are an incredible number of incomptent administrators out there
>that have the job just because they can point and drewl and this does
>lead to problems, but that doesn't let MS off the hook for creating such
>a *crash* cow (take that any way you want).[...]
Jesus. You're just *never* going to learn, are you? Are you blaming
these administrators because they are incompetent (according to your
threshold, which remains unstated beyond the assumed link to Windows
crashes) or are you blaming them because they can "point and drool"
(i.e., they are empowered to administer Windows by Microsoft's
contention that you don't need to be a computer science graduate to do
so.)?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 16:21:36 -0700
Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8kiii4$1vi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >Please read the finding in the DOJ vs Microsoft case.
> >
> > Oh I know some of the details of that case.
> >
> > However... people don't buy OS's if they're _that_ bad. Could it be that
> > Microsoft actually got some it _right_?
> >
> > I would have preferred if they weren't so aggressive, or so determined to
> > make sure they win, but without that, do you really think they were
> > creating something so terrible?
> >
> > Pete
>
> Was that before or after they put DRI and DrDos out of business
> by making sure that win3.1 would NOT run on it no matter what.
> Encrypted code and all.
>
> JIM
Not to mention when they stole STAC's compression scheme. ;)
These things matter to a lot of people. The end doesn't always
justify the means. In fact, with Win9x, I'd argue that the end isn't
even _good_.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:57:34 GMT
On 12 Jul 2000 16:01:16 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>You're jumping to all sorts of conclusions here that I don't believe are
>necessarily correct. It's possible for a lawyer to have an opinion on a
>topic as a matter of law regardless of whether they intend to act on that
>opinion or not. I don't believe that the FSF legal counsel is scummy
>enough to claim to believe something just so that he can sue on those
>grounds; if he says he thinks that linking to a GPL library makes the code
>a derivative work, I think that's his honest legal opinion on the basis of
>existing laws and cases.
>
Actually it might just mean that the lawyer doesn't think he's risking
a Rule 11 sanction for signing an entirely unsupportable claim. It
might even mean that the lawyer would be willing to argue that existing
law should be changed or reinterpreted to support the claim.
Given the importance of this point to the FSF, I'd want to hear the
legal counsel's position in detail before I'd assume anything about
the merits of his position.
>
>A static library is another matter entirely; linking with a static library
>is probably okay, but distributing the resulting binary probably puts you
>under the influence of the license of the static library, given that
>you're making a copy of portions of that library for a purpose that isn't
>a necessary step in making use of your copy of the library.
>
I think a better argument is that there is no provision in copyright law
allowing distribution without permission that is analogous to the
provision allowing copying necessary for using a program. Since distributing
a static binary requires distributing at least a portion of the library,
you need the copyright owner's permission.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "David Petticord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:52:22 -0400
Max,
I was tempted to do this in a private message, but that, somehow, felt like
I was breaking the rules...
It was only two days ago, that you were asking "Is there anybody here?"
Trying to be a Friend,
David Petticord
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:10:15 -0400
Paul Colclough wrote:
>
> >Also, in your other post you make it sound like you really want every
> >program installing into its own directory. I know it's really difficult
>
> Not really, I really just wanted to know every program that was installed
> and where about it was installed. Most dist's install a *LOT* of utilities,
> most of which I have no idea what they do, and probably will never use
> them.
>
But your software may use those utilities, even if you don't. I don't do
shell programming, but I wouldn't get far without sh.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:30:21 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> "1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net (1$Worth) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >If you had an ounce of sense and knowledge about your beloved platform
> >you would know to which known bug I am referring (and which version of
> >9x).
>
> I know how the internals of Windows 95/98 work. I went to a meeting inside
> Digital held by Microsoft describing how it works, how all processes can
> see each other, how there's no protection etc.
>
> That doesn't mean to say it can't stay up for any length of time, now does
> it?
You are right. The problem is that us programmers make mistakes. If you
really believe that lack of process protection does not correlate to
system stability
then I have no hope of convincing you.
> [snip kind of insult]
> A bit difficult as I don't have a gameboy.
...ok, N64 then...
[snip bit about UK]
> > I guess you can consider this a
> >flame as I just find your attitude towards Linux repulsive. It's as if
> >you expect Linux = Win32 and if it does not meet this that it is
> >inferior. Go read a book on OS design, then have a look at Win9x
> >architecture and tell me with a straight face that it is "good" for
> >reliable computing.
>
> I don't need to go read no book to tell me Windows is leading Linux. I can
> see it right in front of me.
You see, you see THAT'S the problem, you are not even willing to learn!
How can you type this without thinking "blimey, maybe all these people
have got a point, I'll go to amazon.co.uk and get an OS design book.
Your version of "leading" means something different to mine and without
reference to technical superiority, there can be no argument. I will not
begin to argue that KDE or Gnome is as useable as Win32 because I don't
believe this to be the case (at the moment), BUT like I said before, you
forget the time you needed to spend to understand the inconsistencies in
windows, just 'cos Linux WM's are different, does not mean that once
mastered they are less "powerful" in terms of usability than windows.
GUI is a problem across all platforms (yes, even the MAC).
> Please explain why the leading desktop OS is Windows? Good design has
> nothing to do with it - technologically better systems usually don't win,
> like Betamax, Archimedes, Alpha etc.
I think you'll find my trusty Amiga was ahead of Archimedes in many
areas (but that's a different thread)
Let's take that statement again:
"Good design has nothing to do with it"
Then why should I use a badly designed OS as my Internet connection, web
server and file server, database server and version control? I want
reliability for these functions thanks, and I don't want Bill to dictate
my computing experience.
> Do you remember the Acorn Archimedes? Care to comment on that machine? RISC
> OS desktop was better than Windows 95, yet this is a cooperative
> multitasking OS.
I liked the Acorn Archimedes. I know nothing about it's OS though.
>Do you know what that means? Did you know that Windows 3.1
> was a cooperative multitasking system (except for the DOS prompt)?
to an extent yes (start thread about scheduling algorithms here), but
NOT multi-user
> > If it's so damn reliable then why was there a need
> >for NT? Why did so many companies jump at NT?
>
> Because NT has protected processes that can't bypass the OS and get to the
> hardware - a requirement DOS games needed. With DirectX that requirement
> has largely faded.
There was a need for NT because businesses told M$ to produce a reliable
OS or they would go to IBM.
> > Aye? Aye Mr. Troll? I hope
> >you sleep well under your bridge at night 'cos you don't seem to be
> >winning friends and influencing people here.
>
> Oh but I am, if you read peoples replies carefully.
Pass me my guide dog please. <bumps head>
[snip]
> As for producing code for the community, will this pay my bills? Will this
> help me with my mortgage? Can I buy a car off the proceeds of any software
> I give away for free? Hmmm???
There is no hope for you sir. How do you think that Linux started? Have
you seen that the guy who gave all his code away is now doing rather
well? If you give of your time, it may just come back to reward you.
Just like contributing a technical answer to a NG may save someone hours
of hacking, sometimes a reward of gratitude is all that is required. Do
this in your spare time like most of the world and you can still have
your job to pay your bills. Just please stop criticizing at all costs
something many people have spent hard years creating into an OS many of
us find invaluable. The lovely thing about Linux is that it has created
a caring and sharing community, and this is something I value far more
highly than marketing hype and some billionaire telling me that I can't
fix what I don't like about the software that I have purchased (believe
me, I keep my C up to date by altering things that annoy me!). Linux
gives you freedom. Just like the American dream of venturing into the
unknown to claim your stake, Linux allows you to shape your computing
world to state your claim to what you've always wanted. Call me soft,
but even just the idea is compelling enough to make you want to jump in
to investigate. If you spend most of my day (and working life) in front
of a PC hacking away you'll understand that having things work as you
like is so very important. Giving your time to this cause if you can is
worthy and not without reward.
> > That's the point - thats why it's nice and thats why we
> >like it (and yes - have a look at my headers, I use BOTH win and Linux,
> >so for me it is Win-Win (so to speak) ). (+1 to killfile).
>
> Altruism always feels nice before the hordes stampede all over you.
What can I say?
> >Ahhhhh, now I feel better.
>
> Ah yes, isn't it good to get that off your chest? Feel better now?
Yes, but this just shows that I lied about the killfile thing.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:37:55 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> As soon as the pressure that prevents most firm from port beyond Windows is
> gone, you many be supprised at the porting rush. I have seen that before as
> well. Learn you history and you will have your answers.
OK. I'll be waiting.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 17:39:19 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12 Jul 2000 16:01:16 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're jumping to all sorts of conclusions here that I don't believe
>> are necessarily correct. It's possible for a lawyer to have an opinion
>> on a topic as a matter of law regardless of whether they intend to act
>> on that opinion or not. I don't believe that the FSF legal counsel is
>> scummy enough to claim to believe something just so that he can sue on
>> those grounds; if he says he thinks that linking to a GPL library makes
>> the code a derivative work, I think that's his honest legal opinion on
>> the basis of existing laws and cases.
> Actually it might just mean that the lawyer doesn't think he's risking a
> Rule 11 sanction for signing an entirely unsupportable claim. It might
> even mean that the lawyer would be willing to argue that existing law
> should be changed or reinterpreted to support the claim.
Yes, but having heard statements from the FSF legal counsel in the past, I
don't believe this would be the case. The main FSF legal counsel that
I've seen cited in the past is Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal
History at Columbia Law School. In general, given the way he expresses
himself, I would expect his legal opinions (as opposed to his personal
opinions) to be well-grounded in the law and not driven by the desires of
the FSF or his beliefs as to what the law *should* be like.
He certainly does have strong opinions of his own on copyleft and related
issues, but I've seen a few e-mail messages from him to various lists on
legal matters and he seems very good about being clear when he's
expressing his personal opinions and when he's putting on his lawyer hat
and giving a legal judgement.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:42:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >OTOH, we get Mac advocates claiming Windows doesn't have PnP because it
>> >doesn't work perfectly with non-PnP hardware.....
>>
>> Yes, but you also get PC advocates who claim that Window's proprietary
>> version of PnP has trouble with PnP hardware, as well as non-PnP
>> hardware.
>
>Please detail how Windows' PnP is "proprietry".
That's a good one. LOL.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451739
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:48:32 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> Because there was none.
Incorrect. You're merely demonstrating your difficulty in
comprehending the evidence supplied.
1> Exactly.
I see that you didn't answer my question. No surprise there.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: 13 Jul 2000 00:49:02 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:04:52 +0200, Mig wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>Its an HP Deskjet 950C.. and its not supported directly.. but i suppose it
>could run with other HP drivers.
http://www.linuxprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=273833
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:48:09 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:57:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> >Ick, platform specific packaging utilities always suck. If anything,
> >they eliminate your control, and you often have to put the software
> >where whoever packaged it thought it should go.
>
> In the case of say RPM, the above statement is just plain wrong.
Not in all cases. I once tried to install KDE somewhere else besides
/opt, and RPM would not do it. Some packages are not relocatable.
<snip>
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451739
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:50:55 -0400
In article <Al8b5.30477$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
> 1> Because there was none.
>
> Incorrect. You're merely demonstrating your difficulty in
> comprehending the evidence supplied.
Incorrect. You're merely demonstrating your difficulty in presenting any
evidence.
> 1> Exactly.
>
> I see that you didn't answer my question. No surprise there.
On the contrary, my answer was quite appropriate.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:56:13 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
Heh heh. I just read that one of the things the new W2K SP1 does is
correct the spelling of "Microsoft" in a number of pop-up dialogs.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:56:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:13:12 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>It is ? Where is it stated Windows is specifically meant to "plug & play"
>>with hardware not designed to be PnP ?
>
> What hardware would that be these days?
You want to know what's really ironic? This was one of the issues with
Microsoft's proprietary version of PnP when it came out. It *didn't*
work with non-PnP hardware, at least not in the same way that the PnP
spec handled it. (Which is to say, correctly.) And Chris just asked me
to "detail how Microsoft proprietary PnP is different." It was even
funnier the way he said it.)
That makes you what I call "intentionally ignorant", Chris. What's more
widely known as "an argument from ignorance". As in "if you can't
detail how Windows PnP differers, it is not different." As in "if you
cannot cite where it specifically states Windows is meant to work with
non-PnP hardware, it doesn't." If you weren't so obvious about it,
having been ignorant about both sides of the same issue in order to
refute two separate claims, you'd just be ignorant. There's nothing
wrong with that, and I try to help people overcome that, when I can. As
it stands, it appears you're a troll.
I don't know where, Chris, it says either of these things. Can you give
us a single reason besides your insistence that it doesn't say these
things? Because apparently a bunch of people (and, no, it doesn't
matter which bunch, how small a bunch, or whether there is a
contradictory bunch) seem to have the impression that a) PnP systems are
supposed to be able to deal with non-PnP hardware, and b) Windows PnP
doesn't (at least not well), and that it is a proprietary, if
compatible, version of PnP. (Whether these two are related is a
separate discussion which I'm not currently qualified to pursue.)
Give us a reason, please. I'm begging you. I've got a reputation for
calling honest inquirers trolls, so please please please prove me wrong,
and suggest you have something to teach us about PnP, and not just about
how to contradict statements without having to support your claim.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:58:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
[...]
>IRQs are a pretty simple issue. If you have cards that cannot share IRQs,
>then they must each have a unique one. If you have more cards than IRQs,
>you're stuffed.
Ooh, thanks. A shame I didn't learn that back in 1986. Duh.
[...I've read the whole message, but you don't seem to have anything
that is any more useful to contribute, so...]
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SPECweb99 results
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:00:16 -0500
"Steven W. Mentzer" wrote:
> Amazing....
>
> redhat wraps in a kernel-mode web server and no-one sees the potential for
> security issues and panics.
Actually, I've seen several people raise questions about it in several
Linux-oriented discussion forums.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
