Linux-Advocacy Digest #929, Volume #27 Mon, 24 Jul 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows98 ("Spud")
Re: Windows98 ("Spud")
Re: Vacuum, void, null... .NET ("2 + 2")
Re: MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar (Osugi Sakae)
HELP ! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows98 (Steve)
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Any Corel O2K Users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance? (Woofbert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:30:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Linux? The OS that compsci graduates have trouble with?
> > > >
> > >
> > > What? You're kidding, right?
> >
> > Somewhat tongue in cheek, of course. But just about anyone will need to
> > resort to large scary manuals during installation or configuration,
> > which is something that just isn't necessary with most OSes these days.
>
> The only problem I had during my initial install was with the absence
> of an Xresources and Xmodmap files in a particular directory. I did
> read in Sam's Redhat Linux Unleashed that the files should be in a
> certain directory. I copied them there and that was that.
>
> I also required an entire weekend to install my SoundBlaster Card,
> as I failed to read a part of the documentation that applied to Vibra 16
> cards, which cards require an unusual IRQ.
>
> But hey, I'm also not a grad student in comp sci.
Now, how well do you think a typical computer user would deal with these
issues? Most of 'em would flip out at the messages Linux displays while
booting....
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 22:39:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>>>This discussion has got way too long to continue as it stands - I suggest a
>>>big snip, and a change of format before continuing.
>>
>>Cool by me. Thanks for the indulgence.
>
>I take it we agreed on points 1-4? That's what I call progress! (Or maybe
>I should call it "innovation"?)
You should call it "bullshit, nice try".
[...]
>I think, if there was no other choice, he would learn success without
>criminal behaviour.
But there is no other choice. You're acting like criminal conduct is a
valid alternative. He's *already* not allowed to do it, and he still
does it. Forgive me for noting that rehabilitation does not seem to be
an option for poor Bill. He is, quite simply, unable to understand what
"compete" means. All he knows is "win at all costs", and all costs are
always necessary for such a person.
>I doubt if he could succeed without unethical behaviour
>(you might, if you try hard enough, be able to dig up examples of successful
>(in terms of money, fame and power - not my idea of successful, but
>certainly BG's idea) self-made people who have not bent the law beyond
>breaking point, but very few have "made it" without being unethical). It
>would be extremly difficult to enforce the law, but that was our assumption
>in this discussion.
That's bullshit, and I won't buy into it. Success does not require or
mandate or encourage unethical behavior. Ambition does not require
greed, and history is overflowing with people remembered for ethical
conduct, even in business.
It will always be easier to make money unethically then ethically. Such
is the nature of man. The religious crowd note with glee that the path
to damnation is simply a choice of taking the easy way. I say we have
to simply demand better, of ourselves and of each other. I refuse to
bow to cynical delusion, and I will not assume that money, fame, and
even power are generally reserved for unethical people. Because that is
a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is simply taking the easy way out.
>>You've admitted that he's a megalomaniac, and all but admitted that MS
>>(whatever MS) doesn't write good software; they just sell software good.
>>So where again does the 'able to compete in a free market' part come
>>from?
>>
>
>MS took the easiest path to success. All I am saying is that if that was
>blocked off, they would take a different road. We all agree that they do
>not write good, competitive software at the moment. All I am saying is that
>if they had to, perhaps (note - I am entertaining a possibility, not trying
>to claim a fact) they *could* if they *had* to.
Not with BG at the helm. He'd rather be destroyed than act ethically,
as dramatically evidenced before our very eyes.
>My original statements were:
>
>1) When discussing where MS would be, we are really talking about where BG
>would be.
>
>2) BG is a meglomaniac. He wants power and money, and has a much stronger
>drive to achieve that ambition than most people.
>
>3) He is very resourceful. He is an excellent marketer and salesman. He is
>intelligent (I don't want to discuse how intelligent, but he is certainly
>not stupid). He understands the computing market and market forces.
>
>4) He wants to get rich fast, and has no scrouples
>
>Surely you are not arguing with 4) ? You want to add a new "fact":
Sure, I'll argue with #4. He wants money merely for the power. His
ambition is to "run the world", not simply own it. The only reason he
wants to own anything is so he can charge everyone for using anything,
but not for profit motive. He's not even merely greedy. He's a
megalomaniac, plain and simple.
> 5) BG will avoid competition.
>
>I don't think that is valid, as it is outside BG's control. I happily agree
>with "BG will avoid competition whenever possible", but it does have to be
>conditional. You can't write "BG will avoid being assasinated by a rapid
>a.d.m.'er", because he cannot control it. You have to add "if possible."
>
My statement was that he is incapable of competing, and it stands with
no qualifiers or caveats.
[...]
>You are saying that there is no evidence that BG could compete in a lawful
>environment; I cannot give you any good evidence that he can (the snipets of
>circumstantial evidence that I can provide are outweighed by the torents of
>anti-competitive evidence). But that does not imply that he could not
>compete - it just means that we do not know that he could.
Well, that would reduce my contention to an argument from ignorance. If
you assume, that is, that evidence would be necessary to show he could
compete. I don't think that's an issue, as the 'natural state' seems to
be that a business fails unless it can compete. While BG may or may not
have ever attempted to compete, it is public knowledge at this point
that this is not how MS became successful. He has shown no evidence
that he can compete, so it is a presumption that he could which I
believe is an argument from ignorance.
Either way, we must agree on the entirely imaginary nature of our
dispute. The question is not whether it is an intellectual
consideration, but whether it is more likely that MS would be successful
without anti-competitive behavior, or whether they would be unsuccessful
without anti-competitive behavior. And I'm afraid all evidence points
to the latter. It is certainly not an argument from ignorance.
>My theory is
>that BG will do what it takes to succeed. If he were put in a situtation
>where the only way to succeed were to compete lawfully, then he would try
>that. As there is no evidence to the contrary, my theory must stand as a
>real possibility. I don't claim it to be anything more than a possibility,
>but you have no proof against it, as by your own admission, the situation I
>suggested has never arisen. We can disagree on how likely it is, but you
>cannot reasonably claim it to be impossible.
Acting unlawfully is *always* an option, so your theory is
unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless. There is evidence to the
contrary, as well, since BG has been caught and convicted, and still
insists that he will not change his behavior in the slightest bit, and
seems all the more convinced that it is lawful. I'm afraid your theory
can only stand as a 'real possibility' in the context that it is a real
possibility to teleport through walls using quantum field theory. There
is much to guarantee it won't happen, so there's no sense calling it
anything but "impossible".
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:42:25 -0700
[snips]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lhvfr$lpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There are other reasons for using partition images besides "Large
scale
> rollouts".
Perhaps; I've yet to encounter them. Well, other than the "golly,
gee, my OS can do this..." benefits. :)
> 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.
Images? What a horrid way to back things up. If nothing else, it's
horribly wasteful. Let's see; I have a 27Gb drive, and about 8Gb of
files on it. I can choose to back up all the files (about 8 Gb), the
files changed since the last backup (about 800Mb worth, more or less)
or I can do an image backup - 27Gb. Guess which way I'm going to go?
:)
> 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.
Nope. Mac, Amiga, they're in there too. You know, systems intended
to be used by the average person, not systems intended to be
recompiled by techno-weenies.
>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.
You'll excuse me while I laugh here. First off... six kids? Second
off, all networked? Okay, that's 8 machines. That means Dad (or
Junior, as the case may be) needs to know enough about networking to
first, understand that he needs it, and second, understand _what_ he
needs; exactly how many 8-person families do you know that have 8
machines, networked, and an 8-port hub? I'll count the number I've
ever heard of: zero.
Now, since you were _supposedly_ examining the situation of a typical
household, yet have set up a household configuration I've _never_
heard of, let alone encountered, how do you figure this applies in any
way to anything remotely "typical"?
Never mind, you've gone off the deep end.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:45:36 -0700
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Oh, it is revelent because it put the lie to that blanket
statement
> > that is
> > > so oftern used that "Linux lags behinds Windows"
> >
> > Fine; take it up with them; it's hardly a position I espouse.
>
> Yet you keep proclaiming it.
Really? Where? Do please feel free to point it out. I can't recall
having _ever_ made such a statement.
> Why is that?
Because you're smoking too much loco weed?
> > 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.
>
> You're failure to see the utility of such methods indicates a
> lack of experience.
Indeed; I've only been in the computing field 21 years.
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Vacuum, void, null... .NET
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 22:46:33 -0400
I see your "Joel" and raise you one Bertrand Meyer, one of the leading
lights of OO programming and the inventor of the Eiffel language, at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/techart/PDC_eiffel.htm
The .NET Platform is a move to a middleware platform, which has no doubt
been accelerated by the antitrust case.
Basically, the splitup calls for Microsoft to divest the Windows OSes AND
remove the middleware, including transaction processing in Windows 2000.
If splitup, Microsoft will keep the rest, including the middleware.
The .NET Platform targets the enterprise and web software markets.
This software will be delivered as a "service," and it will first focus on
providing the middleware infrastructure for ASPs.
Enterprise software has traditionally involved a huge service component,
unlike "shrinkwrapped" desktop software.
We can expect to see enterprise and web "services" delivered as a mass
product in the Microsoft style.
Already Microsoft has the first componentized Transaction Processing monitor
which has taken the lead on TPC-C benchmarks. This will be alternatively
offered as a service.
Components are plug-in with low development costs.
The slew of # languages (# basically means that the run in the Common
Language Runtime) are the developmental infrastructure for these plug-in
components.
Important services will include database services, especially with "cube"
engines for OLAP. Microsoft has its Plato "OLAP for the masses" technology.
This then will be offered as a service.
ADO technologies for extracting data from any database is another important
part of this infrastructure. Basically this data will be pulled into a
programmable web page that utilizes the DOM, XML and SOAP technologies.
N-tier development, which is largely done on servers, allows a component to
receive "client" services from various App Servers on the backend supplying
everything from transaction processing to analytical processing.
This App Server, traditionally an application, can be "delivered" in the
form of a "service:"
"For example, a company might assemble an online store using the Microsoft
Passport service to authenticate users, a third-party personalization
service to adapt Web pages to each user's preferences, a credit-card
processing service, a sales tax service, package-tracking services from each
shipping company, an in-house catalog service that connects to the company's
internal inventory management applications, and a bit of custom code to make
sure that their store stands out from the crowd."
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/0900/WebPlatform/WebPlatform.asp
But the real key is what components can do with interface-based programming
that goes beyond objects.
Joel's silliness about messages obscures the importance of
messaging-oriented-middleware with event models carrying "state" being the
key to web scalibility, etc.
And we see this in its early developmental stages as the "IP" of a "higher
level" Contract Definition Language that manages true "software machines."
2 + 2
Eric Bennett wrote in message ...
>
>Some comments on the nothingness that is Microsoft .NET white paper:
>
>
>http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$133
>
>
>
>Excerpt:
>
>=====
>
>What's going on here? I couldn't find one single idea that could
>actually be implemented in a software product in that entire white
>paper. Instead of providing a list of features, Microsoft provides a
>list of amorphous "benefits" like this one:
>
> Web sites become flexible services that can interact, and exchange
> and leverage each other's data. [Ibid]
>
>That's a "feature" of this exciting .NET architecture. The fact that it
>is so broad, vague, and high level that it doesn't mean anything at all
>doesn't seem to be bothering anyone. Or how about:
>
> Microsoft .NET makes it possible to find services and people with
> which to interact. [Ibid]
>
>Oh, joy! Five years after Altavista went live, and two years after Larry
>Page and Sergei Brin actually invented a radically better search engine,
>Microsoft is pretending like there's no way to search on the Internet
>and they're going to solve this problem for us. The whole document is
>exactly like that.
>
>=====
>
>--
>Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
>Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
Subject: Re: MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:42:59 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Read "The Bell Curve", and you'll understand why, in fact, your
>feelings are entirely consistant with reality.
>
>
I suggest that you read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay
Gould. IIRC, he devotes quite a bit of space to explaining
why "The Bell Curve" is faulty science / scholarship.
--
Osugi Sakae
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: HELP !
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:38:05 GMT
I deleted the shortcut "ccentral.lnk" in the
C:\windows\startmenu\programs\startup directory
on my friend's computer, which is running
Windows '95. But every time I shut the
computer down and restart it, this
shortcut magically reappears in the startup
directory, the computer executes the shortcut,
and gives an error message when it can't find
the program. The program is some sort of
answering machine, fax program.
How can I permanently get rid of this shortcut
in the startup directory? Please email me a
solution, if you can. Thanks.
Windows is the operating system from Hell.
I apologize if I have posted this in the wrong
forum, but this is an emergency. My friend
thinks I broke their computer.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:52:35 GMT
Household here with 2 parents both advanced
college degrees and 3 children.
Several Windows PC's and Linux systems and an
iMac.
Guess which one the kids fight over?
Yep...
The iMac.
It just works.
The Windows machines are always dying and the Mac
simply keeps on working.
Te Linux machine is too ugly and devoid of useful
software for the kids to even consider it.
They call it the lamer, whatever that means.
FWIW a 14 year old girl and twin 10 year olds, a
boy and a girl.
Steve
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:42:25 -0700, "Spud"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>
>You'll excuse me while I laugh here. First off... six kids? Second
>off, all networked? Okay, that's 8 machines. That means Dad (or
>Junior, as the case may be) needs to know enough about networking to
>first, understand that he needs it, and second, understand _what_ he
>needs; exactly how many 8-person families do you know that have 8
>machines, networked, and an 8-port hub? I'll count the number I've
>ever heard of: zero.
>
>Now, since you were _supposedly_ examining the situation of a typical
>household, yet have set up a household configuration I've _never_
>heard of, let alone encountered, how do you figure this applies in any
>way to anything remotely "typical"?
>
>Never mind, you've gone off the deep end.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 22:49:42 -0400
"Clell A. Harmon" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:01:41 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> : > >> >I wrote it.
> >> >> : > >>
> >> >> : > >> No, really.
> >> >> : > >
> >> >> : > >Do I have to post a damn copyright notice?
> >> >> : >
> >> >> : > Steal one of those too?
> >> >>
> >> >> : you're not funny, you're just droll.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry Aaron. I read something similar to this way back in the days of
> >> >
> >> >How similar? I have never read any such item.
> >>
> >> SURE you haven't.
> >
> >prove it.
>
> OOOH, 'Pwove it' he says. Face it Aaron, you got caught
> lying, all your foot stamping won't change reality.
You have failed to even demonstrate that this other work even exists.
Thus, your accusation of plagiarism is entire without merit.
Hint fucking hint: If you're going to accuse somebody of copying
something, then you ought to be prepared to demonstrate how it
compares to the orginal
You can't, because the work doesn't exist.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Windows v3.1. It's anything but your concoction.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Any Corel O2K Users?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:45:05 GMT
Would depend on what kind of stuff you need to import/export. If you
work in a mundane unimaginative setting like government, chances are
WordPerfect will handle most of what you need to do. If the source of
your documents is from something like the desktop publishing field,
forget it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:03:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
I say, good show there, boy! :-)
As I've been saying all along, a competent network administrator can
support a heterogeneous population of operating systems ... while NT
administrators whine and moan about having to support Macintosh.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, Datadroid
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
Consider God's handiwork: for who can make straight
that which He hath made crooked?" Ecclesiastes 7:13
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
