Linux-Advocacy Digest #867, Volume #27 Sat, 22 Jul 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: windows annoyances (again) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (Loren Petrich)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Loren Petrich)
Re: windows annoyances (again) (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:30:31 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> I wonder if anyone has tried to collect a list of military follies.
>
Yes, there are many books under similar titles.
Go to Barnes and Noble, and look in the Military History section.
> Those I can think of offhand are:
>
> The inhabitants of Sybaris, a Greek colony in southern Italy 2600
> or so years ago, had taught their horses to dance to some music. So when
> the people of a neighboring city, Croton, went to war with them, the
> Crotonians played that music and those horses danced. It's not too
> difficult to work out who had won that war -- the Crotonians.
>
> In a battle in the French and Indian war around 1750 in what is
> now the eastern US and Canada, the French and Indians had dressed in
> inconspicuous clothing and hid behind trees, firing when convenient, while
> the British forces had dressed in resplendent red coats and fired in
> formation. Again, it's not too difficult to work out who had won that
> battle -- the French and Indians.
Sounds very similar to the battle of Concord.
American revolutionaries dressed in browns...
Redcoats dressed as...well, you know...
>
> A little over half a century ago, French military strategists had
> thought that they had the ideal protection from a repeat of the "Great
> War" of 1914-18 -- the Maginot Line. However, the Germans simply went
> around it, through Holland and Belgium.
>
> I wonder if that WinNT-equipped ship will qualify as a similar
> folly.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:35:02 -0400
Ray Chason wrote:
>
> "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Another shining example of people who run down MS software and have no idea
> >how to use it.
> >The same person who will say "rtfm" to a new linux user when they are having
> >trouble compiling their first Kernel. The same reason Linux is doomed as a
> >mainstream desktop platform, because such a large portion of its user base
> >is an exercise in arrested development and gives it a bad name among
> >computer users in general.
> >
> >> I'd plonk him, but Microsoft hasn't innovated the killfile yet.
>
> 1) That post was intended to be light. Kulkis answered with a nasty flame
> and is now serving time in my killfile. I may let him out someday, if
> he'll trim that big wanking spam sig.
get over me.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:02:26 -0500
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The whole thing is indeed a "fuck up". This experience is
> > > typical for installing windows. I've installed windows thousands
> > > of times and I can't count how many times I've had to do
> > > ridiculous things like swap hardware, remove hardware, add
> > > hardware ad infinitum just to get the install to run. I've never
> > > had any such experience with any distribution of linux. I have
> > > NEVER been just stopped cold at an install like that.
> >
> > Really? Try doing a network install of RedHat on a machine with two
> > ethernet cards installed (it's intended to be a firewall).
>
> Which is something QUITE different from having the CD in a local drive.
I don't see how it's all that different. In any event, you basically said
that Linux couldn't have a similar problem and went on about how you had to
swap hardware or jump through hoops to get Windows to install, and then
implied that you would NEVER (your caps, not mine) have to do so with Linux.
You are wrong.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:15:24 -0500
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > First Multi-processing kernal 1970 1995
> >
> > NT was released in 93, not 95.
>
> Oooooooooh, 23 years behind, not 25.
Considering that MS didn't even exist when Unix was born, it would be hard
for them to have done it first. Even so, MS was a PC equipment company,
multiprocessor PC's were not even invented until the mid-80's, and weren't
common enough to warrant a consumer OS until the 90's.
> > > Full networking support 1984 1995
> >
> > Windows for Workgroups was released in 93.
>
> 9 years AFTER Unix.
MS was doing networking in the 80's with OS/2. It made no sense to include
it with DOS at the time, and it was generally an add-on package because most
users didn't have a need for it.
> > > No differentiation between remote 1984 never implemented
> > > users and console users
> >
> > There was no such thing as a console user in Unix until the 80's. Even
the
> > "console" was a serial terminal in the old days.
>
> You confirm my point!
That can also be a drawback as well.
> > Likewise, we could add:
> >
> > When did Unix start getting direct video support for local users instead
of
> > forcing all UI data to go through sockets?
>
> 1984, Sun Windows (Sun Microsystems)
I don't think X had local framebuffers in 84.
> > > First Multi-user kernal 1970 never implemented
> >
> > For what it's worth, Windows 2000 has full multi-user capabilities, and
NT
> > had basic multi-user support since it's creation.
>
> 2+ simultaneous users, each able to run any arbitrary command through
> either a CLI or a GUI interface???
>
> Nope, uh-uh, try again.
Yes. Terminal services provides complete multi-user capability. And it
ships with Win2000 server and advanced server.
> > > Configuration changes w/o rebooting 1970 never implemented
> >
> > Really? Modify your kernel and see changes get updated without
rebooting.
>
> Hardware configuration changes under Unix do NOT force a kernal change.
Really? In every single Unix that has existed since 1970?
> The only time you need to modify the kernal is to:
> a) fine tune the kernal (buffer or shared mem allotment).
> One CAN do this by running a debugger in /dev/kmem.
> b) upgrade the O/S.
Really? Let's see you do that on SCO Unix from 1985.
> > > First non-fragmenting filesystem 1983 never implemented
> >
> > There's no such thing as a non-fragmented filesystem. All filesystems
> > fragment, some more so than others.
>
> Wrong. Sun first came out with non-fragmenting filesystem. When
> a file is about to be fragmented, it is moved to a larger block of
> open diskspace. Only when the a file occupies the LARGEST block of
> contigous disk space does the file become fragmented.
Wait a minute... You just said "Only when...does the file become
fragmented". So how does that dispute the fact that I said all filesystems
fragement? Clearly this does fragment under the right conditions.
> On the large majority of installations, this works good enough so that
> NO file is ever fragmented.
Funny, my redhat box claims a 2.7% fragmentation.
> > > full remote administration possible, 1970 never implemented
> > > including O/S install
> >
> > NT has always had remote administration.
>
> For *some* tasks.
Never used SMS?
> > > GUI's available 10 1
> >
> > X is the GUI, that severely limits the number of non-X interfaces. A
window
> > manager is not a GUI.
>
> By your definition, Windows doesn't have a gui.
No, the GUI is simply part of the OS, not a seperate app.
> > > Notice a pattern yet, spell-check boy?
> >
> > Yes, I noticed how you didn't get a single thing right.
>
> So my dates are off on M$ implementation dates.
In some cases, off by over a decade.
> You still haven't pointed out a single technology where Microsoft
> has implemented a *modern* technology in even the same year as
> Unix...let alone before.
Well, consider that MS was doing things like DirectX first.\
> And how come some things that Unix had implemented since DAY ONE
> still have not been implemented in Windows (for example, true
> multi-user functionality...something which has been industry
> standard since the late 1950's).
I already proved that wrong.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:06:21 -0400
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" escribi=F3:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>Copyright law has ZILCH to do with functionality, merely the expression
>>>-- which means that programs are *written*.
>> Which is the reason it is important to realize that they are not
>> "written" in the way that *any other* intellectual property is, because
>> they are functional works of design and engineering, not merely
>> literature. Not even literature, for that matter.
> Think: cooking recipes. Functional literature. It either produces
> a piece of bread after being interpreted by a person, or it doesn't.
Good example, too. It turns out that recipes are only partially
copyrightable. The list of ingredients cannot be copyrighted, but the
cooking instructions can be.
-f
--=20
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 smach=
t
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: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:40:51 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:52:22 -0500,
> Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Well I don't particularly like the government or the military so
>
> Well if it weren't for the Government and Military:
>
> 1) There would be no computers as we know today. They pioneered them.
>
> 2) There would be no Internet as we know today. They pioneered it.
>
> 3) There would no reliable electricity, as the power monopolies would
> be to busy playing cut throating their customers.
>
> 4) Doezens and dozens of additional benifits that you take for granted
> would be lost, such as safe food and water and police protection.
>
> And if you don't like all the good things the Government is doing for
> you, you can petition it with your grievences. You can also assemble
> with your friends and protest it. You can also vote. You and your
> freinds can also run for office, and if you get get enough people to
> back you up, you can become the government.
>
> So what's your problem?? Are you a sociopath??
No, he isn't. But you are forgetting that without the military's
receiving those tax dollars, Americans might have made
such things on their own.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:08:38 GMT
On 22 Jul 2000 01:04:59 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>8<SNIP>8
>
>: And if you don't like all the good things the Government is doing for
>: you, you can petition it with your grievences. You can also assemble
>
>LOL!@# How about wonderful things like multiple-taxing of incomes...
>should I be thankful for that too? How about politicians who care more
>about getting pussy and money over helping their nation? Should I get all
>glassy-eyed, and praise them as well?
Well, a nation so obsessed with the stock market, and the success
of robber barons should have seen the massive graft and self-interest
coming.
[deletia]
Quite simply, we need to be more 'ferengi' in our thinking regarding
politics. We can't trust the fate of the nation to some idealistic
notion that sufficient numbers of 'politicians' will act out of
altruism.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: 22 Jul 2000 06:28:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>USEFUL IDIOT wrote:
>> >2. They merely RESTRUCTURED Communism. Defectors in the late 1980's
>> > advised that this would occur.
>> From a grove of birch trees it came...
>Why do you feel it necessary to engage in a smear campaign
>Are you afraid that people might realize that my observations are
>accurate
Nobody else seems to agree with you except for the residents of
certain groves of birch trees. A special kind of birch trees, of course :-)
>> The breakup of the USSR can hardly be called a simple
>> restructuring. ...
>It was all PLANNED OUT IN THE 1980's, you fool.
An absolute total absurdity. Scott Erb notes that the Soviet
bureaucracy had been divided on what to do about Eastern Europe in the
late 1980's, and Gorbachev had prevailed in letting Eastern Europe go,
even though this meant losing East Germany to NATO. Yes, *LOSING* East
Germany. That was despite some "Germanists" wanting some sort of
officially-recognized respect for Soviet interests from Germany, at the
very least.
>If you purposely take the body panels off of a car, that is hardly
>comparable to suffering damage from a crash.
However, this is more like removing a car's carburetor or its
spark plugs. Russia has had its biggest defeat since WWI, when Lenin
signed a peace treaty handing over the Tsars' Eastern European empire to
Germany.
>> This makes Mikhail Gorbachev's achievements especially remarkable
>> -- he was willing to sacrifice control over eastern Europe, even if that
>> meant totally "losing" Germany. And after what Russia had suffered at
>> Germany's hands some decades ago, that is truly a remarkable achievement.
>You really have no understanding of people who put the goals of
>"The Party" above all else, do you?
From a grove of birch trees it came...
>By the way, where do you think PhoneyFuck Gorbechev is getting all
>of his money from??? Considering that the man doesn't work, how is
>he able to afford a midtown Manhatten apartment??????
He delivers speeches, and collects big fees. He is to be
congratulated for so gracefully ending the Soviet Union's Eastern
European empire.
>It's obvious that the Communist Party in Moscow is funnelling money
>to him, so that he can sell his bullshit to slurping feebs like
>yourself who lap it all up and beg for more.
Absurd. They'd prefer someone with better credentials, someone
like Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Mr. Gorbachev is *not* highly regarded in
Russia, since he had been unable to reverse its decline. He is much more
highly regarded abroad, and the reason is that different people notice
different things about him.
>You are truly one of Lenin's USEFUL IDIOT'S
Spending too much time in groves of birch trees?
>> ROTFL. This "police state" has been *very* ineffective in
>> suppressing criminal gangsters.
>I talk in person with Russian immigrants who have family in Russian
>and/or talk by telephone to Russian citizens in Russia several times
>per month. ...
[Conspiracy theory about criminal gangsters being some
Reichstag-Fire-type scam...]
I'm not impressed, because the Russian authorities are not
bothering such conspiracy theorists very much.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: 22 Jul 2000 06:54:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> I wonder if anyone has tried to collect a list of military follies.
>Yes, there are many books under similar titles.
>Go to Barnes and Noble, and look in the Military History section.
[The French and Indian War...]
>Sounds very similar to the battle of Concord.
>American revolutionaries dressed in browns...
>Redcoats dressed as...well, you know...
I agree with Mr. Kulkis there.
As to that ill-fated WinNT-equipped ship, it seems like it
featured some rather elementary blunders in software design.
Why no checking for invalid inputs?
How would some database software cause a buffer overflow? And how
would the OS be vulnerable to that? Was some buffer size hardcoded, and
was there no check as to how much had been written into it?
As to affecting the OS, there might have been some shortcuts for
speed somewhere, shortcuts that risked writing into kernel space or
whatever, but I can only speculate.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:59:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Slava Pestov) wrote in <iF8e5.64$9l1.6249
@news0.optus.net.au>:
>Because you post the same crap all the time, and instead of bothering
>to RTFM, or contribute fixes, or actually read people's responses,
>you insult Linux and Open Source. Linux isn't owned by one company,
>after all; no-one is obliged to make things work for you. If something
>breaks, fix it and contribute back to the community; then the next
>guy won't experience the problem.
I fixed it myself, thank you very much. Yes I did do some reading (despite
your comments above).
As for insulting Linux and Open Source, I've not done that. I've heard
plenty of abusive response and insults to my comments (like yours for
instance).
If no-one is obliged to make things work for me, why should I feel any
obligation to contribute?
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
