Linux-Advocacy Digest #709, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft ("KLH")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (B'ichela)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Can the long sigline, please (Bob Lyday)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: which OS is best? (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:54:16 -0700
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> KLH wrote:
>
> > RealCea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <snip everything>
> >
> > Aren't you posting to the wrong newsgroup? I beleive there are
Newsgroups
> > for bashing Microsoft. This isn't one of them.
> >
> > Your post had nothing to do with GNU/Linux whatsoever.
>
> As Microsoft is the leading competitor of Linux companies,
> (leading in market share, not necessarily technical quality)
> bashing Microsoft might well be Linux advocacy.
If that is true, then we have already lost.
>
>
> Colin Day
>
Best Regards,
Kevin Holmes
"extrasolar"
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:00:20 -0400
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2000 16:20:24 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you have built something that includes a GPL'd component
>> and anything else under different restrictions, you can't
>> give it away, even if the other component is itself freely
>> available or the recipient already has it.
> ...those being "commercial" and pseudo-PD.
Jedi, of course, doesn't know what the hell he's talking about -- it's
pure conjecture and bullshit. Freely available software is not
necessarily commercial, even though it may not be commercially
unfriendly, like the GPL.
If I wrote a licence, call it the CLCPL ("CopyLeft Credit Public
Licence") -- essentially GPL + credit clause -- it's as unfriendly to
proprietary licences as the GPL, but it's not compatible with the GPL.
This little thought-experiment -- the CLCPL -- shows that you haven't
used even two little brain cells to think about what you're saying,
Jedi. Such a licence would be neither pseudo-PD nor commercial (read:
proprietary) in nature. Just because the CLCPL doesn't (yet) exist does
not change that other licences with restrictions SIMILAR to the
theoretical CLCPL exist -- which aren't commercial or pseudo-PD.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela)
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:57:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:13:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A distribution like Slackware is what I believe Linux is really about.
>Linux shouldn't try and cheap'n itself by offering half assed
>solutions, but instead should focus on the many things it DOES do
>well.
>
>Slackware is Linux in it's rawest form. it makes no assumptions and
>for the most part expects the user to know what he is doing. In the
>hands of some one who knows Linux, this translates into awesome power
>and control over the OS.
>This is IMHO of course, and I DON'T fit into that catagory :)
Us Slackware users thank you for your compliment ;) Slackware
is not the Rawest form of linux but its pretty basic in its
configuration and setup. (for real raw, build Linux from scratch ;))
I don't use a GUI much. If I do, I mainly fire up fvwm95 under
X, mainly for Netscape. (most of the time I use lynx under the cli).
Unlike Redhat, Slackware's packageing system really is
rudimentry, Mainly a tar program with a built in script processor.
However, the setup package is NOT that bad. I can select what packages
I really need from a list of menus. Say for example I did not want X,
simple I just don't select X! maybe I don't want Ghostscript. Same
thing I deselect ghostscript. By selecting What I really need during
installation (or later on), I can maximize the Ram and disk space that
is available to me.
I have no plans to switch to anything other than Slackware, as
I prefer the individual control I have with the system. There is no
linuxconnf or yast or whatever to get in my way. (I did intall
linuxconf under slackware but rarely use it). Its just me, Tar and vi
and good ole gcc when it comes to installation of software.
B'ichela
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:08:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Many people mentioned that utilities were available to reprioritize
>tasks under PMT OSes. If it took them some time, it was probably because
>your understanding of the basics is so flawed that it wouldn't have
>meant much to you.
Bullshit. Thanks anyway, though.
>Of course, it shouldn't surprise me that you apparently didn't notice.
>You've ignored just about everything that has been said in this thread,
>and now that everyone has been driven to the end of their patience and
>said as much, you've become hostile.
More bullshit. Why is it that people expect me to pay attention to what
they say when they couch their supposed presentation of information in
ridicule? I'll admit, I've been a bit grouchy, lately. But all I did
was defend (to the death, true, but through no disingenuous presentation
or lack of logic) the possibility that CMT was a worthwhile alternative.
And the only thing that's wrong with that is that I didn't learn why CMT
isn't considered worthwhile in college. The bungled explanations I was
given weren't ignored, they just weren't very incisive. They were
parroting of the standard line, not technical breakdowns or synthesized
arguments.
Nobody said 'you're not arguing for CMT, you're just saying we need a
lot better scheduling systems.' If they had, I'd have agreed, and we
could move on. One of the things that struck me most was from Ben's
very helpful link to http://unios.dhs.org/std-sched.html :
================================================================
What should be remarked is that this algorithm is not the best
algorithm that we can imagine, but it is, proven mathematically
and by experience in the early days of OS programming (sixties
and seventies), the algorithm that is the closest to the 'best'
algorithm. Perhaps when computers get more powerfull some day,
that we might implement the ideal cpu time scheduler.
===============================================================
Not more than a week ago, I had someone tell me seriously that not a
single definition of a technical term had changed definition or been
refined since the 1970s, in all the world of networking. So it doesn't
surprise me that the basic algorithms were developed in the sixties and
seventies (this text was written in 1998). But it occurs to me that if
the topic of discussion is Linux as a desktop platform, it would have
been noticed by someone, somewhere, that the 'some day' seems to have
become 'today', and it is more than appropriate to wonder why PMT isn't
even decisive enough an advantage to make the CMT Macintosh entirely
unusable in comparison.
The same person that insisted networking is what Unix programmers say it
is also advocated the host-centric use of computers in business, where
essentially every desktop acts as little more than a client, and a
client-only system *can* be considered appropriate for a CMT
implementation, at least according to some.
The vast majority of the CPU time in a modern PMT system is essentially
doled out round-robin fashion, I'm told, despite the use of queues and
priorities. Something better would make Linux a decisive, even
definitive, desktop platform, I think. Perhaps a true Shortest Job
First method. Or the inheritance scheduling bit on that page seemed
intriguing. Does anyone know if the work at CMU was followed up?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 03:59:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said David Petticord in alt.destroy.microsoft;
<snip>
>>A real-life situation...
>>
>>A client calls me up complaining he got a Dr. Watson the night
>>before. He tried but couldn't make it happen again. I walked
>>him through using the Dr. Watson control panel to enabling logging
<snip>
>>It turns out the Dr. Watson log file pointing to an application that
>>used UDP ports which are normally free in a Microsoft only
>>network. The vendor (not Microsoft) provided an upgraded
>>executable that moved the UDP port used and added
>>protections against future overlaps.
>>
>>To some, an explanation of "if you look at the documentation
>>provided to you, it clearly states this application assumes an
>>isolated subnet or, at least, free use of the following UDP ports."
>>sounds like so much double talk and whining. It so happens the
>>client in this situation could grasp my explanation and agreed
>>he shared responsibility for the problem. He was delighted
>>that we provided a solution that didn't require him to reconfigure
>>his network (he out-sourced his IT department and it isn't as
>>accommodating).
<snip>
> Actually, David, your point illustrated my issue so clearly and loudly
> that I thought, for a second, you were making it up.
>
> Replacing an executable? Why the hell would an executable have a port
> hard coded into it?
<snip>
>THIS is why Windows failures are random. You never know who is
>going to be the bonehead today. If this had happened in the Unix
>world (which, of course, it might have; stupid people write software
>on Unix, too, and I've known people to not understand how ports are
>supposed to be used), everybody, EVERYBODY would immediately and
>without malice or reasonable doubt know who fucked up, and it SURE
>as hell never would have been suggested that it was the user.
It was a "Unix world" and we still don't have an answer as to the
who, what and where, even though we gave the network sniffer results
to the IT professionals running the show.
It takes two to tango. Here it took three. This is *NOT* a mass
market software product. It is used in one application by one user
(in multiple locations). The application involves 11 networked
computers passing real time data back and forth (at each location).
The restriction of a private, disconnected sub-net wasn't hidden, it
was an up-front requirement and agreed to by the cost-conscious client.
So it took...
1. The Windows application to react badly to an unexpected UDP message.
2. The Unix System to network *broadcast* to an unassigned port.
3. The user to mistakenly think his IT professionals put in the
isolation router as they said they would.
As to the Dr. Watson. In a way, I am glad it happened. Yes, it would
have been more professional for a "UDP message from unknown origin"
message box appear, but the user would have probably ignored that.
(That ended up being part of the bug fix).
As to the "hard-coded UDP port". Please note, in a system of many
executables on many systems, only one executable needed to be changed.
The UDP port was dynamically negotiated across the network. There
was one parameter that needed to be changed. Could that parameter
have been stored in the Windows registry or a *.cfg file? I
understand you opinion but, in this case, a hard coded port is
defendable under the KISS principle.
No, I suspect it was the Unix programmers that hard coded their UPD
port in multiple boxes. At least they claimed it would have taken
a massive number man-hours to change it.
I understand your violent reaction to unprofessional programmers
in the Microsoft world. And, yes, there are more of them in the
Microsoft world. And, yes, the Microsoft world makes it easier
for people to pretend to be knowledgeable.
But...
The market wants the Microsoft world. Companies don't want to have
systems that require on-staff system engineers to support them.
Clueless programmers are cheaper and more productive. The fact
they produce junk is of little consequence in "look at the next
quarter's profit margin" world. Does it work, today? Good enough.
I am biased, because our business plan counts on this. We provide
the out-sourced capabilities of the Test and Measurement departments
big companies used to have in-house.
We are the middle-men. We get overly-aggressive, under-funded
projects from our clients and junk from vendors and make it all
come out in the end. It involves assisting and educating both
parties. We are constantly sending unacceptable hardware and
software back to vendors with suggested fixes. We are also
explaining cost and schedule trade-offs to our customers which
includes overt discussions about compromised quality and stability.
I'll be curious if you see us as being part of the problem or part
of the cure. Without hesitation we will take the more stable product
if the cost and availability are even close to a less stable product.
Personally and professionally I want Linux to be successful, but
a recent conversation with a vendor would illustrate the current
problem.
Me: "Your product caused a BSOD on our client's computer"
Vendor: "Windows NT does that all the time, use should use Linux"
Me: "Do you have a Linux driver for this hardware?"
Vender: "No"
I eventually tracked down the problem, and the fix (more waving of
dead chickens). Again, our clients were delighted because they were
afraid they were just going to have to live with it (the alternative
would have cost millions of dollars).
As I have hinted, this month we are actively pursuing a Linux
opportunity. So do you curse us for covering up Microsoft's
mistakes, or praise us for our efforts to promote the use of
Linux?
Providing Counter-balance,
David Petticord
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:24:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Sorry, I meant clients as customers, not machines. A customer pays
>you to run a complex simulation. The simulation does not require your
>attention after you start it, but it does require the lion's share of the
>CPU. If the customer pays enough, I will put up unresponsive apps
>to run the simulation.
This seems a direct argument for Shortest Job First, in which some
explicit notion of which thing is expected to finish first is given
priority. The problem, of course, is determining the notion, and
deriving it.
[...]
>> One of the coolest utilities I've seen for
>> handling Internet stuff is a download app called GoZilla. This handy
>> little database inserts itself in the way whenever I click a link in a
>> browser that would start a download. It keeps track of my downloads and
>> makes managing them in all sorts of ways much easier. But that's not
>> why I got it. The thing I love is that each download window for each
>> separate file has a little slider in it, which enables me to
>> individually and directly control (as well as set defaults and policies
>> with download categories) how much of my available throughput that one
>> particular download is allowed to take.
>
>But how does this relate to CMT? This seems to be network bound
>rather than CPU bound. Can one do this in CMT? One can do this
>with CPU time in Linux, at least if one is root (shouldn't be a problem
>on a personal desktop machine), although I don't know if there is a
>nice GUI front end.
One can do anything in CMT one can do in PMT, if one designs a suitable
CMT system. I do indeed like the potential for elegance and flexibility
in leaving CPU use to a daisy-chain system of autonomous processes using
an explicit and minimal set of rule mechanisms, rather than an external
scheduler. I understand the engineering difficulties involved,
generally, I think, but that isn't related to GoZilla. The manipulation
of the scheduler, though, is indeed the most direct mechanism for
implementing this kind of functionality in the current PMT system. It
merely requires integration into the UI to provide more efficient and
adaptive configuration by the operator. Because only the operator knows
if they have a client waiting; the scheduler is as ignorant as the app
would be in a CMT system.
[...]
>That's why there is nice/renice.
Yes, but the nice value, it turns out, doesn't have anywhere near the
impact as the other components of the algorithmic scheduling. I'm not
sure really how much, though, as I'm not a CS graduate, and I really
suck at math. Here's the piece where it comes up, I think:
p_usrpri = PUSER + (p_cpu/4) + 2.p_nice
And the description says that nice "cancels out some of the effects of
high CPU loading". I'm not really sure how much impact that has on the
over-all efficiency of algorithmic scheduling.
Then again, I guess I'm still not sure how much impact algorithmic
scheduling has overall on the handling of bottlenecks, or where those
bottlenecks are. So I'm obviously floundering at this point. But I'm
told that some of these assumptions may not have been questioned in more
than twenty years, and I think some rather broad changes in use of
computing resources have occurred since then.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:22:29 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Can the long sigline, please
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
> A good OS should NEVER need to be reinstalled.
Linux needs to be reinstalled on rare occasions. Therefore it is not a
good OS?
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
> C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
> D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
> E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
> G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> H: Knackos...you're a retard.
It is a violation of netiquette to have a sigline longer than four
lines, sir.
--
Bob
USER ERROR: Replace user and press any key to continue.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:32:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:30:08 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:20:19 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>>wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >>>And that's the problem with CMT. What if you put a rendering job in
>> >>>the bg? It dies, basically. It's a PITA on a modern computer - you
>> >>>can run one thing, and everything else is suspended. Oh, it isn't
>> >>>nearly that bad, and modern CPUs have smoothed over some of the
>> >>>problems, but still, it's a horrid method of MT'ing.
>> >>
>> >>But my question then becomes "why does the rendering job die?" The PITA
>> >>for all modern technology, I have found, usually rests on
>> >>connection-oriented demands that were formerly necessary due to
>> >>technical restraints and lack of ingenuity. All the really cool
>> >>technology is the stuff that abandons those assumptions, and points out
>> >>that sometimes building the system to tolerate unreliability is WAY more
>> >>powerful, and even easier at the same time, then continuing to build
>> >>systems that mandate reliability, but are just as ineffective,
>> >>ultimately, at providing it as the connectionless alternative.
>> >
>> >That's touching. Please try to address what I said and stay on topic.
>>
>> I did. What's wrong with you? Why does the rendering job die? Can't
>> you answer?
>
>He did, before you even questioned. The rendering job "dies" because of the
>inherent limitations of the CMT scheme.
>
>For someone who claims to be intelligent, you're doing an extremely poor job
>of *learning*.
Heh.
You've misunderstood the question, apparently. No bother; I'll rephrase
it: "Is there some reason that the renderer fails under load?" Suppose
it was on a PMT system, which simply had many other things with
priority. Is it reasonable to tolerate a process which can't deal with
multi-tasking well, whether CMT or PMT?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:34:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:05:09 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:30:08 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:20:19 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>And that's the problem with CMT. What if you put a rendering job in
>>>>>the bg? It dies, basically. It's a PITA on a modern computer - you
>>>>>can run one thing, and everything else is suspended. Oh, it isn't
>>>>>nearly that bad, and modern CPUs have smoothed over some of the
>>>>>problems, but still, it's a horrid method of MT'ing.
>>>>
>>>>But my question then becomes "why does the rendering job die?" The PITA
>>>>for all modern technology, I have found, usually rests on
>>>>connection-oriented demands that were formerly necessary due to
>>>>technical restraints and lack of ingenuity. All the really cool
>>>>technology is the stuff that abandons those assumptions, and points out
>>>>that sometimes building the system to tolerate unreliability is WAY more
>>>>powerful, and even easier at the same time, then continuing to build
>>>>systems that mandate reliability, but are just as ineffective,
>>>>ultimately, at providing it as the connectionless alternative.
>>>
>>>That's touching. Please try to address what I said and stay on topic.
>>
>>I did. What's wrong with you? Why does the rendering job die? Can't
>>you answer?
>
>Because the foreground app has "control" of the CPU. C'mon - wasn't
>it obvious?
No. A process can get starved either way; what does it matter to the
renderer whether it is another process or the scheduler which restricts
whatever "breath of life" it needs which impedes its ability to work on
a multi-tasking system?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 14:34:05 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
A_Customer_at_an_easyEverything_Cybercafe wrote:
> I've taught both platforms and can say hand on my heart, it's easier
> to get someone to point at something rather than to try and remember
> which commands to type in or in what order to do them in. Or course
> you will always get the odd person who will fail to grasp even that -
> I taught a guy who put engines together for a living, but couldn't
> figure out that holding a mouse the wrong way round (the wire coming
> out the bottom) would not help matters.
You can only teach people who want to learn. If they want to learn a CLI then
eventually they will learn it, though it may be harder. Speaking personally learning
a GUI is easier with help, learning a CLI is best done on my own.
IanP
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:38:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
>[snip]
>> Obviously not a defense of the Microsoft troll who posted that this case
>> concerns whether you can or "can't have a Internet browsing in a
>> sufficiently popular desktop OS?" But hopefully it was educational and
>> interesting to those with more than one tenth of a brain.
>
>Or at least for lawyers. You appear to feel that what matters is not
>whether it is a good or a bad idea for the DoJ, or Congress, or
>Judge Jackson to go around designing OSes, but whether
>*that is what the law mandates*.
>
>This suggests to me that you may be a lawyer.
>
>Is that so?
Not at all. I agree most heartily that it is a bad idea for the DOJ,
Congress, or Judge Jackson to design OSes. We merely disagree in the
fact that I don't believe that has anything to do with Microsoft's
conviction on anti-trust grounds.
>If so, I can understand why you can't accept my squealing about
>being reamed in the name of anti-trust. If law says I should
>be, then what could I possibly be complaining about? Is the
>law, after all!
>
>If you aren't a lawyer, then I guess I don't understand why this
>is mysterious to you.
It is mysterious to me because whether or not bundling IE with Windows
to kill Netscape by trying to "cut off their air supply" is not a
question of designing an OS, but of building and selling a product. It
is, indeed, incredibly lousy OS design, IMHO, but that is, indeed,
beside the point. Microsoft is free to make stupid design decisions.
They are not free to force them on the market through monopolization or
tying.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
