Linux-Advocacy Digest #913, Volume #27 Mon, 24 Jul 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (tholenbot)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Rich Teer)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (tholenbot)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: windows annoyances (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: EDS (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows98
Re: Leninist USEFUL IDIOT denies reality, attempts a smear campaign (Harold)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (Craig Kelley)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Paul E. Larson)
Re: Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Any Corel O2K Users? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 (Davie Tholen) ([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?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:57:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > False. Certainly big names like Dell, Compaq etc weren't carrying
> > non-Windows PCs, but that's because they cater to the majority market,
> > and the majority market is only interested in Windows.
>
> No, they cater to Microsoft, who dictates licensing terms. Obviously,
> you haven't been paying atention to the trial.
They cater to the people who buy their computers, they /pander/ to
Microsoft.
Regards,
Anal English Major
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:59:22 -0400
In article <%LRe5.149$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <XB8e5.62$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > In article <euWd5.132$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <lWvd5.50$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In article
> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Another unsubstantiated claim.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Check the archive, Slava.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The burden of archive checking is yours, tinman. You made the
> >> >> >> unsubstantiated claim.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How ironic, coming from someone who makes unsubstantiated claims
> >> >> > without
> >> >> > checking archives.
> >> >>
> >> >> How ironic you allege that my claims are 'unsubstantiated' when you
> >> >> have just made one yourself.
> >> >
> >> > Illogical.
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> > Typical pontification.
>
> How ironic.
See what I mean?
> >
> >> > I have not made one of your claims.
> >>
> >> Correct, but irrelevant, given that I never claimed you did.
> >
> > Incorrect, Slava.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
You already proved it, by making the claim. How ironic that you fail to
recognize this fact.
> Remember to use the scientific method.
Of what relevance is this remark?
> >
> >> > Still having reading comprehension problems, Slava?
> >>
> >> See what I mean?
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> On the contrary, you simply failed to recognize the logic.
There was no logic to recognize, Slava.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> What alleged "Tholen emissions"?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The ones that result from digestion,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I see no evidence of "digestion" here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> >> >>
> >> >> Incorrect, given that neither I nor tinman are currently being
> >> >> digested.
> >> >
> >> > See what I mean?
> >>
> >> Yes, but your meaning is incorrect, thus it is irrelevant.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> See above.
Typical circular reasoning. Ineffective. Meawhile, where is your
logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
> > Gearing up to lose another argument, Slava?
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who has already lost the argument.
Illogical. Why do you continue to argue, Slava?
> > 0
>
> What alleged "0"?
Ask your mentor, grasshopper.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > now that Tholen's back on CSMA.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I wonder how Dave Tholen would react to your claims that
> >> >> >> >> >> he's
> >> >> >> >> >> "back on CSMA".
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Ask him, I'm sure he'll answer to your satisfaction.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I'm not here for "satisfaction", tinman.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Then why are you here?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Don't you know?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I see you didn't answer the question.
> >> >>
> >> >> The answer was self-evident, Eric.
> >> >
> >> > On what basis do you make this claim?
> >>
> >> On the basis that the answer was self-evident, Eric.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who claims I engage in "pontification".
See what I mean?
> >
> >> >
> >> >> > Gearing up to lose another argument, Slava?
> >> >>
> >> >> Obviously not, Eric.
> >> >
> >> > See what I mean?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, but your meaning is incorrect, thus it is irrelevant.
> >
> > Argument by repetition, Slava?
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who has already employed argument
> by repetition several times in their post.
"their" post? Who are "they", Slava?
> > Ineffective.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated claim.
Incorrect.
--
Prove that African swallows are non-migratory, if you think you can.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:57:34 GMT
On 24 Jul 2000, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I guess proprietary Unix vendors have their own package "standards",
> there are quite a lot of them.
No - SVR4 compliant Unices have one packaging standard: pkgadd and friends.
--
Rich Teer
NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:00:50 -0400
In article <%IRe5.124$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <Yz8e5.61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > In article <kvWd5.133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
> >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> tholenbot wrote, quoting Timan and Slava Pestov time and again:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> [never mind what he wrote, shouldn't we pass the
> >> >> >> hat around to buy him a long-sleeved pajama top, though?]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Leave those two young people to their budding tryst, you
> >> >> >> miserable bot with a thpeech impediment!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Typical invective.
> >> >>
> >> >> I see no invective here.
> >> >
> >> > Predictable, given your reading comprehension problems.
> >>
> >> The only thing that is predictable is your continued unsubstantiated
> >> claims.
> >
> > Illogical.
> >
>
> Your unsubstantiated claims are indeed illogical.
You erroneously presuppose that my claims are "unsubstantiated".
> >> >> > How predictable, coming from one of the antagonists.
> >> >>
> >> >> I see no antagonist here.
> >> >
> >> > See above.
> >>
> >> Proof by irrelevant reference, eh Eric?
> >
> > Obviously not.
>
> Proof by proclamation, eh Eric?
Obviously not.
> >> >
> >> >> Gearing up to lose another argument, eh Eric? How predictable.
> >> >
> >> > You erroneously presuppose that I could lose "another" argument.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Are you implying that you have already lost all possible arguments?
> >
> > Obviously not.
>
> Proof by proclamation, eh Eric?
Obviously not.
> > Meanwhile, where is you logical argument? Why, nowhere
> > to be seen!
>
> How ironic you attempted to answer your own question, but failed to
> do so correctly.
Incorrect. Meanwhile, you still fail to present a logical argument.
--
Prove that African swallows are non-migratory, if you think you can.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:49:51 GMT
In article <8l7tqi$575$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l79io$s8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
-- snip --
> > Since when have managing e-mail and web browsing been "OS"
> > functions?!!?!
>
> Since around the same time a shell (of any description) became
> standard issue with an "Operating System" distribution. Indeed, since
> around the same time an "Operating System" contained anything except a
> bare kernel and some device drivers.
So, then, it has yet to happen.
> The computer science definition of an "operating system" is moot in
> the consumer world.
Translation: The true definition of an "operating system" is moot in The
Microsoft World.
> What 99.9% of the computer using population call an "operating
> system" is really an "operating system distribution".
What "99.9% of the computer using population call" *anything* is
irrelevant. Or perhaps we should all start calling out CPU boxes "hard
drives."
-- snip --
> > an OS function (bye-bye photoshop et al)? Howzabout Point Of Sale?
> > Word Processing? Spreadsheeting? Databasing? Video editing?
> > Streaming media?
>
> As long as it doesn't cost any extra, I'm all for it. I'm sure you
> can see the likelihood of that.
>
> > Where does it end?
>
> Linux distros ship with multiple developer tools, web browsers, image
> editors, networking programs, office apps etc etc. Presumably you
> also advocate that these should all be wiped from the market and
> everyone should have to build their Linux machine from scratch ?
No, but then I have yet to run across any Linux distro which calls the
various included browsers and e-mail programs "part of the OS." No,
Linux makes a clear distinction between the OS kernel and *APPLICATIONS*
and utilities.
OTOH, if Windows (including Outlook Express and IE) were available free
for download, along with the source, FROM MULTIPLE VENDORS, then:
A) I would have less to complain about, and
B) Your argument would make more sense.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:52:27 GMT
In article <8lcgog$1kv9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> > I fixed it myself, thank you very much.
>
> You did not, you liar.
Oh but I did. I got the Sound Blaster 16 card working and I said so in
other posts. So, how am I lying?
> > Yes I did do some reading (despite
> > your comments above).
> >
>
> No you didnt, liar. You have been caught in your lies around these
> parts half a dozen times. No one takes you seriously at all.
Oh but I did.
Nobody has caught me lying. You're making that one up. How can anyone
take _you_ seriously when all you do is post one liner statements with
no facts to back it up?
> > As for insulting Linux and Open Source, I've not done that.
>
> Lie.
Fine. Evidence please?
I do not refer to Linux as Linsucks unless I first see Winblows or
whatever.
I've never referred to Open Source in anyway, let alone insult it.
You're the one who's lying.
> > If no-one is obliged to make things work for me, why should I feel
any
> > obligation to contribute?
> >
>
> Go back to windows and stay there. You do not have the intellect for
> linux, quite clearly.
This from someone who is lying and posting abuse? PAH!
--
---
Pete
Coming soon: Kylix!
(I do not need the destruction of Microsoft to succeed).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:59:43 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8lhqsc$sme$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8l58vb$hbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
> > > Given that MS-Cheerleaders have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
> > > rational discussion seems fruitless.
> >
> > Given that anti-MS zealots have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
> > rational discussion seems fruitless.
>
>
>
> > I am not an "MS-Cheerleader", I'm simply pointing out the simple fact
> > that machines without Windows, without an OS, or with your OS of
> > choice have *always* been available.
>
> To hard-core geeks, yes. I have already said as much, but we are talking
> about Joe and Jane General Consumer and the typical retail channel,
> which dc has already admitted that MS has "sewed up pretty tight."
>
> > You'll have to work hard to convince me the computers I've bought in
> > the past without any OS and with OS/2 don't exist.
>
> And you'll have to work really hard to prove that you are really paying
> any attention to this discussion.
>
> > > Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue.
> >
> > False.
>
> Uh-huh. "Proof by Proclamation" strikes again.
>
> > > Unless you built your own machine from parts, or went to the most
> > > obscure hole-in-the-wall mom-n-pop computer shop in the county,
> > > there was no way to not buy Windows bundled with your computer.
Even in 1995 you could pick up a copy of PC Shopper (if you could lift 75
lbs) at Wal-Mart and choose from thousands of part vendors.Sources for
building your own computer have always been readily available.
> >
> > False. Certainly big names like Dell, Compaq etc weren't carrying
> > non-Windows PCs, but that's because they cater to the majority market,
> > and the majority market is only interested in Windows.
>
> No, they cater to Microsoft, who dictates licensing terms. Obviously,
> you haven't been paying atention to the trial.
In the first place....
Every software maker "dictates their own licensing terms" and it is
completely legal.
but....
Which evidence was brought to the trial which said that OEM's cater to
Microsoft? I beleive the only evidence I've seen brought to trial was the
Compaq witness saying that they were NEVER forced to put Windows on any
machine they have ever sold. And he went on to say that if a critical mass
of the market had had demanded another OS they would offer it on their pre
built systems right along with Windows.
>
> > Or would you like to see the government leaping into and controlling
> > the computer retail market, forcing vendors to carry products with
> > little demand and wear the extra cost, as you would like to see the
> > government jump into and control OS design ?
>
> I would like to know where you guys get these fallacies. For starters,
> Government is already involved; Government is what allows MS to exist as
> a Corporation in the first place. If MS doesn't wanna play by the rules
> of Government (which is solely responsible for MS' very existence in the
> first place) then MS has to answer to Government.
Actally I've heard rumors of MS moving operations and distribution to
Canada. Then the government will have nothing to worry about. They will be
forced to *invent* a new criminal to protect us poor Windows users from.
>
> Also, Government's first order of business has to be self-preservation.
> If some uppity Corporation starts getting arrogant and breaking Laws
> with appparent impunity, amassing a substantial power base in the
> process, then it's Government's duty to keep that Corporation in check.
The government has not shown that MS has broken any law. Hence - the
inevitable success of this appeal.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: EDS
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Jul 2000 11:42:53 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
> >
> > Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when ostracus would say:
> > >Everyone has heard the expression that controlling programmers is like "herding
> > >cats". Well EDS has shown a commercial were they're doing just that (herding
> > >cats)..
> >
> > ... And they pretended that this was somehow a sensible idea ...
> >
> > REALITY is that "herding" and "cats" are not compatible concepts.
> >
> > EDS may be able to pay some video producers to put together something
> > that, for 45 seconds, makes it _appear_ that cats are being herded,
> > but that is quite distinct from actually being able to go into
> > business doing that sort of thing.
> >
> > It seems pretty consistent with their "business model," quite
> > frankly...
>
> Having contracted for them on 3 different occasions, I would agree.
I still have to. Every day. I depend on them to send one little DDS
tape every month so that I can update our medicaid database, and for
the past 6 months each *alternating* tape doesn't include proper
data. I've called them, emailed them and faxed them about the
problem. Every time they say they've "fixed it" (after I *finally*
can get a hold of a live body) it still comes out wrong.
No, my experience with EDS has not been posititive at all. You should
see some of the nightmare tapes that we got before the system
"stabilized" (a year-long process in which you exchange a couple dozen
DDS tapes).
[snip huge signatre] (I'll keep bugging you about this! - please shorten)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:43:19 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:A2Te5.6358$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snips]
>
>
> Don't know offhand; partition images, other than perhaps for
> large-scale roll-outs of multiple client PCs, strikes me as a
> particularly silly thing to do. Is it that easy? Perhaps, perhaps
> not. Is that relevant? I doubt it; ask your typical home PC user how
> many times a week they have a need to do this.
There are other reasons for using partition images besides "Large scale
rollouts".
Were you talking about home users? I was under the impression you were
talking about other environments. But that makes no real difference because
we were talking about the various capabilities of the operating systems.
Let us look at the position that you are championing that the typical home
PC users do not need this capability to so easily backup a restore partition
images. It may be more along the lines that they have been using an
computing environment that does not offer the simplicity of unix partition
images file manipulations and so for them it is more trouble than it is
worth.
By the way, I don't know what your image of the typical home user is;
however, I would assume you would picture it to be a Windows centeric
environment. So let me setup this situation. A household with two parents
and six childern. Each family member has their own workstation that are
networked together. The original reason for the networking was to permit
support for multiplayer games and internet access. The childern's machines
all run Windows 9x in the default bootup configuration.
Let's say you are the father in that family. You just came home from a long
hard day at work and just had dinner. You had plans for the evening, but
little Billy comes up to you and says, "Daddy, my computer broke again."
You sigh and go see what happened to his box. You try to boot it had
discover that boot fails and the OS seems to be missing. Asking your child
what he did he replies, "Nothing it just stopped. ... Daddy what does
"format c:" do? Sam in school told me it make the computer go faster and
have more room but when I used it my computer broke. That didn't do it did
it?" So it is time to pull out the installation CD's and floppies for the
OS and the drivers and the applications. Time to reinstall. reconfigure and
recustomize Billy's computing environment. Oh Joy! Too bad, your were so
look forward to tonight's planned activities.
Now let's see how it would have been different if the if you had used what
you call a "particularly silly thing to do" to preserve a copy of the
partition's contents as it was after it was all installed in a pristine
condition.
Forget about all the time consumed by reinstallation, reconfiguration and
the rest. Just get the backup media (I will assume tape). Boot the
workstation into Linux, insert the backup tape into the drive issue this
command as root:
( cat </dev/ht0 >/dev/hda2 ; shutdown -r now) &
Logout and walk away for a little while. Latter when the computer is again
running as a Windows workstation, come back get the tape and put it back
into storage for next time. Tonights planned activities are still on!
If the childern's workstations don't have tape drives, that is no problem.
Boot Billy's workstation into Linux. Go to your workstation put the tape
into your tape drive and login then issue the following command as root.
(rsh billy "cat >/dev/hda2" </dev/ht0 ; rsh billy "shutdown -r now") &
or you could speed up the process by using compression in the network link
by issuing this command:
( ( compress </dev/ht0 | rsh billy "compress -d >/dev/hda2" ) ; rsh billy
"shutdown -r now") &
Then once you have issued either of these command lines, logout and walk
away or continue to do your other work on your workstation. When the job is
finished Billy's workstation will reboot into Windows and all you have left
to do is put the tape away.
BTW using billy and the hostname for Billy's workstation is a bad idea, but
that was for illustration only.
------------------------------
From: Harold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Leninist USEFUL IDIOT denies reality, attempts a smear campaign
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:48:51 GMT
On 23 Jul 2000 03:59:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Loren Petrich wrote:
>
[deleted]
>
>>> The birch trees I have in mind are John Birch trees :-)
>>Demonstrating once again that you admit that you are unable to
>>even compete in this argument without resorting to slander.
>
> Are you unable to laugh at yourself?
And when, Loren, did you stop beating your wife!!!
LOL. Can't you laugh at yourself, Loren?
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people
of the United States who are peacable citizens from keeping their
own arms."
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Jul 2000 11:52:41 -0600
"Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [snips]
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Real OS means multi-tasking OS; one which supports multiple
> processes on
> > a general purpose computer platform.
>
> Really? Funny; last I checked, DOS was a real OS - just one intended
> for single tasking. What you're describing isn't a "real OS", but a
> multitasking OS. Multitasking is a feature available in _some_ OSen,
> but not all. This is basic computing theory.
Depends on who you talk to.
DOS = Disk Operating System
An OS typically *has* a DOS (or, more recently, a VFS), but a DOS
isn't an OS. For example, Apple //gs workbench used Apple ProDOS and
the Amiga used AmigaDOS, but in neither case was the disk subsystem
the OS itself.
But, personally, MS-DOS would have to be considered an OS because it
attempts to abstract the hardware; even though it has an unfortunate
name.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:53:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:49:28 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>[snip]
>>> >Yes- they are free to tie whatever they want with their software
>>(*including
>>> >a ham sandwich), and it is their right to have their product distributed
>>in
>>> >a un altered state.
>>>
>>> They are free to have that right if there motivation is benefit to the
>>> consumer, not if there motivation is to limit competition.
>>
>>I am pretty sure that copyright law doesn't say anything about their
>>*motivation*; And anyway, if being *greedy* were grounds for a
>
> Actually, the copyright clause of the US Consitution quite
> plainly justifies intellectual property entirely in terms
> of public good.
>
You want to show us the clause you say is the copyright clause -
http://tn.areaguide.com/constitu.htm
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Jul 2000 11:56:57 -0600
Glenn Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone advise me here? Does NT outperform Linux running Samba
> for file and print services? I am assuming the same specification
> machine.
>
> Lets say a late model Pentium with 128MB of memory, 10Mb/s network
> card acting as a local area network server to about 10 client PC's
> running a mixture of windows 95 and windows 98.
Up until 2 months ago, we had a Pentium 166 with 64MB of RAM serving
400 users across 100 client machines (mostly Windows, but some are Mac
users as well). Here's the old configuration:
http://inconnu.isu.edu/~ink/new/links/computing/links/gront/
Now we have web-based e-mail, virus scanning in the e-mail and a whole
host of other goodies with the new box.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Any Corel O2K Users?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Jul 2000 11:58:04 -0600
Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm considering Corel O2K for Linux. I see at http://www.linux.com
> StarOffice is still more popular. I currently have SO5.1
>
> Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
>
> PS: I need to Import/Export lots of M$ Office docs - StarOffice works
> for about 60% of the Imports. Will WP be more successful? -- It seems
> every e-mail correspondent just assumes you have M$ Office these days...
It's a great beta-quality product.
I wouldn't depend on it to do anything production-oriented, though.
(I have Office 2k deluxe). The penguin toy is cute.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 (Davie Tholen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:03:29 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes:
>> yet those who carefully look at all of Marty's responses
> Who are "those"??
The ones who look carefully at all of Marty's responses, Glatt.
Having more reading comprehension problems?
> The only people reading your exchange with Marty are people who
> think that he sounds like a reasonable person and you're a
> clueless nutcase, fool, and loser
Prove it, if you think you can, Glatt.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
