Linux-Advocacy Digest #772, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 04:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Arthur Frain)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Stuart Fox")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("David Brown")
Re: I just don't buy it ("David Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 19 Jul 2000 03:37:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [...]
>> >> Then other than buggy applications, there's no benefit to PMT, right?
>> >
>> >Wrong.
>>
>> Couldn't you just say "you're mistaken"? Or maybe skip it entirely and
>> merely address the point, as you do below?
>
>Why sugar coat it?
Why not? It encourages, rather than discourages, more discussion when
you respond in the least contentious and argumentative mode. It isn't a
matter of sugar coating; it is a matter of communicating constructively.
As with Gary's 'first insult them, then expect them to listen to
anything you say' approach, it is a simple matter of suppressing the
knee-jerk reaction, and leaving the information which is no less valid
and far more useful without the intentional provocation of defensiveness
in the poster.
[...very interesting narrative explanation of scheduling algorithm
snipped...]
>> >In a CMT system with no idle time, you end up with apps fighting over
>> >the CPU. A heavily loaded CMT system can literally take _minutes_ to
>> >respond to a user interface event as simple as registering a mouse click.
>>
>> As can, at least a bad, PMT system. I've had Unix boxes behave that
>> way, too, but I've no idea what in particular caused the issue. Only
>> that rebooting fixed it. ;-)
>
>Sounds like an app with a memory leak.
I wouldn't doubt it.
--
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.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:37:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Three years from now bandwidth restrictions and very cheap local storage
>will still make the idea of remote storage absurd.
>But software servers might be a deal for someone, it's just another of the
>vast choices. I'm quite sure if it eventually takes off more companies will
>be jumping on the software rental bandwagon.
You mean like Microsoft? The bandwagon was already here; its call the
ASP industry. ELTRAX, my employer, is one of the leaders in the field.
Well, we were, back when there was a field. Now there's just another
potential extension of the monopoly, and a distinctive suppression of
interest in ASP solutions.
>If MSN put a DSL line to my house for the low prices that MS is known for
>I'd be at least getting internet access through MS.
Microsoft isn't dumb enough to get tangled up in hardware. It would
make their shenanigans too obvious. Even people like you would catch
on, eventually.
>> Is that really what you want? Because that's what Gates says is coming.
>
>Just because MS is unvailing something doesn't mean the consumer will choose
>it.
MS isn't unveiling anything; they're pre-announcing to forestall
competition in a market they formerly had no presence in whatsoever.
>MS tries out these kinds of things every so often , few actually take off
>and are quickly dropped by MS. I never thought anyone would subscribe to MSN
>from day one, yet it was supposed to kill AOL and all the other National
>Service Providers when it was unveiled, wasn't it? At least that was the
>talk from the Anti-MS crowd back then.
It was the talk from CIS and AOL lawyers, too, which is why Microsoft
couldn't pull it off. Where was the empty "Pepsi in a six pack of Coke"
rhetoric when Microsoft was "forced" to bundle CIS & AOL along with MSN?
Left to their own devices, you'd be quite happy with MSN on Netbios, I'm
sure, as you would be too ignorant to recognize the reality of the
situation. Just as you are now concerning the anti-trust case.
--
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.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:37:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mark Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said Mark Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >As bad as Microsoft is, though, and as lousy a job as they did on this, there is
>one group
>> >who would do worse: the government.[...]
>>
>> But all your argument is for naught, Mark. The government isn't making
>> business decisions. Its making legal decisions. Microsoft (both of
>> them) still get to make all business decisions regarding their products.
>
>I hope that is how it stays. If it does, I'll be happy with it. I'm skeptical,
>though. But
>I'm willing to wait and see what happens. I have seen the government get involved in
>business
>decisions, and it's very ugly. And stupid.
I think no small number of cases can be presented on either side. It
doesn't seem outrageous to suppose that it is possible that a large
amount of your concern may be due to the representations (or
mis-representations, as the case may be) of government action from the
perspective of those who misunderstand or were adversely affected by
government action. You can never be too skeptical, you know, not even
about your own skepticism. Or that statement, for that matter, as
"never" is, of course, an indefensible contention.
[...]
>I'm in favor of that, in theory. The means concern me, however.
The means are far more standard and typical than Microsoft's hysterical
rhetoric would want you to believe. The greatest concern is that a
"horizontal split" will not be sufficient to overcome the current level
of integration of Office and Windows. It may easily come to pass that
some things which were (supposedly) feasible because of the "tight
integration" of Office and Windows will not be available. Until real
middleware is evident in the market, at least. But I don't think anyone
will miss most of the "benefits" of Microsoft's monopolization; it has
always hindered innovation in hugely more numerous ways then it ever
provided within Windows or Office themselves.
>> The last requires a breakup of the company so that Office developers and
>> Windows developers cannot use trade secrets to lock out application
>> developers. The government is not designing software. The allusion to
>> this which confuses some people would be that the government insists
>> that the market designs software, and the developers merely do as the
>> market dictates.
>
>If this is what comes to pass, fine. That is how I'd like it to be. But my
>experience has
>been that government tends to involve itself at a far deeper level, and that is
>something I do
>not wish to see. I hope your description of this is what will occur.
There is no discussion of anything else, and I think you have heard too
many scare-stories. Government bureaucracy is never attractive to a
reasonable person. But so long as it remains bureaucracy and does not
progress to tyranny, a result unlikely given our system of checks and
balances (where the court can over-rule attempts by Congress to inhibit
liberty, and the Congress can write new laws to save the citizens from
unfortunate applications of jurisprudence), it is unreasonable to oppose
it prima facia.
To avoid getting overly caught-up in politics, I'll point out that I am
as much Republican and Libertarian as I am Democratic, and I think Ayn
Rand has as many good points as the Socialists do. If you can suggest a
more moderate position than the one I hold, please let me know, as I'm
more than willing to adopt it.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:38:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Phillip Lord in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> How would you ensure that everyone has access to capital
>though? In our current society capital appears to be used to enforce
>the class divide between those who produce and those who live of what
>others produce. I would like to see and end to this class divide and I
>think that it is possible, but my own ideas do not involve
>capital. How does your idea work?
The way I see it, there are three things which maintain the division you
speak of:
1) Access to capital
2) Access to market
3) Access to knowledge
Addressing only #1 by itself is not feasible. But the cornerstone, I
think, would be a social and civil recognition that the vast value of
our economy is, in fact, a public trust. A certain portion of the
capital available must ethically be restricted so as to be accessible in
a purely democratic fashion. A .001% tax on capital assets, for
instance, would probably increase the amount of small business loans
available at attractive terms to individuals by several orders of
magnitude. A general increase in grant-making would tend to directly
support all three of these goals, as well.
Whatever might be workable, it is going to have to involve the
government (giving other's a chance to compete doesn't seem to be high
on the list of current business's priorities), but it has to come from
society, not caveat of law.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:38:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Phillip Lord in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "Phil" == phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Phil> On 17 Jul 2000 12:24:10 +0100, Phillip Lord
> Phil> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> How would you ensure that everyone has access to capital though?
> >> In our current society capital appears to be used to enforce the
> >> class divide between those who produce and those who live of what
> >> others produce. I would like to see and end to this class divide
> >> and I think that it is possible, but my own ideas do not involve
> >> capital.
>
> Phil> How do you mean?
>
> I'm not sure what your question is to be honest. My own ideas
>do not involve capital. I think shifting capital around is not a
>solution to the problem. We need to extend democracy to all fields of
>our life, and make what we have more meaningful. Capital power blocks
>do not have a place.
It isn't a question of "shifting" capital, as capital as a concept, not
a substance. Democratic access to capital means that "power blocks" are
far more vulnerable; even ants can kill an elephant in sufficient
number, without even trying.
The only way to extend democracy to all fields of our life (though I
have to admit that I'm not quite sure what you mean by this) is to
empower every individual to be independent if desired, and decedent on
others only by voluntary choice. If every employee has the power to say
"screw you, this job isn't worth it" because they know they have
reliable access to outside capital with which they might be
independently productive, only then will the employee be an equal at the
bargaining table.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:39:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said phil hunt in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 17 Jul 2000 12:18:30 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[...]Within both the US and the UK the rate of TB is rising (TB
>>is simply caused by the conditions of poverty).
>
>I think resistance to drugs has something to do with it as well.
According to the World Health Organization, the rise is due to both
"issues of health service delivery" as well as "changing social and
economic situations" (read: poverty) in addition to antibiotic
resistance. Emergence of multidrug resistant strains of TB are not the
reason the WHO declared the increase in TB rates to be "a global
emergency", which infects a third of the world's population, primarily
in nations which can only dream of seeing enough antibiotics for
resistance to be a concern.
http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publicat/fullhtml/cd1.htm#Current
--
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: Arthur Frain <[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: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:27:57 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> The difference is the the Left wants government to own all business, and
> the Right wants business to own the government.
Neither the Left nor the Right care at all about
business. The Right wants to regulate your personal
behavior in your bedroom and on the 'net, and force
religion on schoolkids, while the Left wants to
regulate your speech, if not your thoughts, and is
otherwise too busy building [insert easily
identifiable minority group here] studies programs
to be concerned with anything as mundane as what's
actually happening in the country, even if it's
happening to those easily identifiable minority
groups they pretend to study.
However, either the Left or Right is for sale to
the highest bidder come election time.
Fsck 'em all. Parallelized.
Arthur
(And don't get me started on Libertarians - the
anti-government party whose symbol is a large
government owned statue)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:39:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jonadab the Unsightly One in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, that is the focus of my argument, though it applies equally well to
>> the Macintosh. Neither is intuitive; the Mac is just a lot easier. (It
>> also relies on the mouse far too much for my convenience,
>
>Heck, *Windows* relies too much on the mouse for my convenience.
>I would prefer if *everything* that could be done with the
>mouse also had a keyboard equivalent. It ain't so.
I would actually disagree with you there. Much of it is not as easy to
do as it should be, and there are obvious exceptions for "how do you
drag something without a pointer" preclude certain things which frankly
aren't possible with a keyboard. But in the vast majority of cases, you
can do anything with the keyboard with Windows. I've happily used a
system for several days without even having a mouse connected. Well,
maybe not 'happily', but easily.
>Most web browsers are horrific in this regard. I like w3...
>except that it tends to produce a really junky looking page
>when the HTML deviates too badly from the standards. Not
>that this isn't ultimately the webmasters' fault, but w3
>isn't very good at dwimmery.
You certainly lost me on that last part. I'm not thrilled with web
browsers in the way of keyboard control myself, overall, but I've found
some surprisingly effective ways to run Netscape without grabbing the
mouse.
--
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: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:56:42 +0100
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:42:48 +0100,
> Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On 17 Jul 2000 19:38:08 -0500,
> >>
> >> Really?? According to this Microsoft promoted study:
> >> http://www.nstl.com/html/windows_2000_reliability.html Win2K is only
> >> 13 times more reliable that win98, with an average of 2893 hours of
> >> use per crash. And this is in a strictly controlled environment, i.e.,
> >> common desktop apps, with regular reboots. A more intersting test
> >> would be continous use in a multiuser software development
> >> environment, where the behavior of undebugged apps can't be predicted.
> >
> >The document said multiple customer sites, so your theory on "strictly
> >controlled" is out the window.
>
> From the article verbatim:
> "The type of environments in which the tool was deployed for this
> study included academic and business environments as well as NSTL's
> own laboratory"
>
> That's controlled enough. Certainly not software development
> environments, or any other rigorous environment.
Presumably business environments could include software development?
>
>
> >Regular reboots aren't mentioned either, so
> >that's also crap.
>
> Crap?? From the article verbatim:
> "NSTL installed a tool that recorded the uptime for each desktop and the
> occurrence of planned and unplanned shutdowns"
>
> That's planned shutdowns, for desktop systems it's reasonable to
> assume that's regular.
"That a desktop operating system typically gets rebooted at the end of the
day makes MTTR irrelevant and hence MTTF is the key measure used in this
study". MTTR - mean Time to Reboot, the time between **unplanned** reboots.
The fact is that many people don't reboot their NT desktop systems at the
end of the day (or the end of the week). Most people reboot their Win9x
PC's many times during the day, but WinNT!=Win95.
>
> >They also used multiple versions of Win2K - Beta builds
> >through to released builds so that's also likely to skew the results.
>
> Recent beta's...in a non-rigorous environment.
>From build 2000 on... Nothing about rigour at all.
>
> >But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story...
>
> The fact is Windows is still unstable. If that hurts your feelings
> that's your problem.
It doesn't hurt my feelings because it's not. Your interpretation of the
results was a little off, and needed comment. Sorry if that hurts your
feelings
> >That's Win2K Professional by the way...
>
> And what does Win2K server have that would make it more stable? It's
> the same kernel....Same BSOD.
Like you say, more control over a server environment.
>
> And why did you leave out the part about Microsoft's own indication
> that they do not provide OS crash protection from certain types of
> application bugs? As long as that the case, W2k is gonna crash in
> software dev environments.
>
Better to crash in software dev environments where the programmers can
actually realise they've used bad techniques than if you've actually
purchased the app and are running it in a live environment. Software dev
environments should in no way be considered stable.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:58:05 +0200
Tim Palmer wrote in message ...
< snip >
Sorry, was there a point hidden within that huge mass of quotations?
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:05:24 +0200
Davorin Mestric wrote in message <8l1s0i$h9d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"Ian Pulsford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There has been some discussion about M$ .NET. I just don't see the
>> advantages of it from a home user perspective or a business perspective.
>>
>
>> 2. Why would I want to log onto the internet everytime I want to write a
>> short letter or note?
>
> because you need the internet to send it. at least, this is what i do
>today to send an email. write it, connect, send. .NET development tools
>will not change this one litte bit, only perhaps that the email client will
>be written with WinForms classes instead of MFC. .NET also simplifies
>writing standard applications, so it is not all 'the return mainframe
>model', as you are trying to imply, or as you incorrectly understood .NET
>technologies.
>
In the good old days of snail mail, everyone went down to the post office to
write letters ....
Do you get sponsorship from a telephone company? Most people write their
email offline, then log on for a few minutes at most to send it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
