Linux-Advocacy Digest #986, Volume #27 Wed, 26 Jul 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Vacuum, void, null... .NET ("2 + 2")
Re: Mandrake not Linux?
Re: LOREN PETRICH, CRYPTO-COMMIE _Just KillFile the Bitch ("steve")
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future? (Jacques Guy)
Re: Linux User Groups - What is going on? (OSguy)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows98 (Jacques Guy)
Re: Dresden's copyrights (Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?) (Jacques Guy)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Steve)
Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Steve)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Vacuum, void, null... .NET
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:05:39 -0400
rj friedman wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:46:33 "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>¯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...
>
>
>What amazes me in the MS net [talk about an apt name] deal
>is that no one has picked up on the fact that MS is lining
>up ASPs with the same kind of lock-in contracts that they
>used to establish their illegal monopoly in PC desktop
>systems.
>
>Instead of the gun to the head being the Windows [pseudo]
>Operating System (that the OEMs had to have in order to
>survive); now it will be the MS Office apps that only get
>delivered via ASP, so that the ASP has to either buckle
>under to the same tactics and treatment or else close up
>shop.
>
>They are doing the EXACT same thing - in the words of the
>immortal Yogi Berra, "It's deja vu all over again." Cut the
>rattlesnakes head off, and it grows another one.
>
>Why is no one screaming blue murder over this?
Listens to RJ's screams.
Well, this is largely server based and Microsoft has little presence there.
And that's traditional server software. When the amount of software that
involves the web is added, Microsoft's share is a drop in the bucket.
Why not scream about Oracle, SAP or some other server software company
moving into the ASP field?
Database and app server software (analytical such as ERP, CRM, SCM, etc) is
much more important than client software, such as Office.
"Network effects" or bandwagon effects tend to make any popular software
into a market leader, etc.
In this market, Java and CORBA tend to be the "standard" in some small part
of middleware n-tier plumbing. Java will be challenged by the #CLR and CORBA
by SOAP, both of which increase competition.
Basically, the server software market needs competition. OS-centric
platforms like Windows and Linux are rapidly capturing big shares of this
market for the underlying OS layer.
Middleware adds to the competition.
Remember that the Office part of the antitrust case was dropped.
The network effects doctrine has a "applications barrier to entry" collorary
that necessitates an OS with the requisite applications to be applicable.
Apps themselves don't have such a barrier to entry.
Now middleware may be different.
And the relationship of middleware to the OS has not been completely obvious
in terms of whether these are separate products and markets.
This is the big problem for the DoJ's case in the appeals court. Not only
does the remedy not end the monopoly, but it strips the very middleware out
of the OS that was supposed to provide the competition!
The browser is not really an application. It is the web middleware client,
usually called the thin client.
Can an OS survive as a product in the modern market without web middleware?
This appears unlikely.
With middleware included, can an OS like Windows prevent middleware-based
competition? This appears unlikely.
This is the big problem with the antitrust case. The trial court ruling says
the Windows desktop monopoly prevented other middleware from "exposing APIs"
that represented competition.
Most of this competition had been (Netscape) or was (Real Audio/Player)
dominent on the Windows platform.
People seem to want to say two things at once that are logical opposites.
Windows is a monopoly, ie able to prevent competition, and Windows is
"finished," ie UNABLE to prevent competition (from devices or middleware du
jour).
Now when the Supreme Court moves the case to the appeals court, which is
overwhelmingly likely, since it can later hear nicely framed majority and
minority opinions that have plowed through the myriad documents and issues,
the Federal Circuit appeals court is not going to overlook these kinds of
intellectual problems.
If the "tech tying" concept is upheld, and the middleware and OS is held to
be an integrated product, ie the Network OS, as it probably will, but the
court says Microsoft is a monopoly in the narrow desktop market, as it well
might as the one major victory of the DoJ.
What then in terms of remedy? If a breakup is considered, the logical
approach is to create competition in the Windows desktop/client OS space.
This would benefit consumers.
End the desktop/client monopoly directly, not split the company to favor the
various competitors, who fear competition in their overpriced server/web
software/hardware markets.
If a conduct remedy is considered, then the logical approach is to require
the desktop/client OS to support all competing middleware. Get it? The
middleware provides the competition. Don't eliminate the competition. Make
sure it is included.
2 + 2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________
>
>[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
>rj friedman Team ABW
>Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To send email - remove the `yyy'
>________________________________________________________
>
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mandrake not Linux?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 07:33:20 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dEtf5.80481$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> UNIX. Face it -- it's the oldest technology around and takes by far the
Wrong, according to paleontologist, the oldest technology that has left a
trace in the archaeological record is the hand axe.
------------------------------
From: "steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian,misc.legal,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH, CRYPTO-COMMIE _Just KillFile the Bitch
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:36:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I tried to engage this cunt in a discussion many times, and she is
absolutely unwilling to think. Ask her a direct question and she makes some
vaguely related and highly offensive claim instead of a response. Why waste
time with someone who refuses to evaluate ideas? I only wish we could give
cunts like this the world they want without fucking up the world for the
rest of us. That would teach her the lesson she needs and deserves. I have
her on killfile.
steve
--
"It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:14:31 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >> On 20 Jul 2000 00:24:56 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:24:03 +0100, Russell Wallace
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >> >>> Even the ungraceful shutdowns aren't too bad, if one uses something
> >> >>> like reiserfs -- a full-fledged data-journaling file system.
> >> >>> (Disclaimer: I don't have it on my system, so can't say from personal
> >> >>> experience.)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> By contrast, FAT is flat. :-)
> >> >>
> >> >>FAT is one of the very few pieces of software I've ever come across that
> >> >>I really trust. I've seen any number of DOS/3.1/W95/W98 machines
> >> >>hard-shutdown due to power failures, crashes or whatever in the 12 years
> >> >>I've been working with them, and FAT doesn't mind in the least - all
> >> >>that happens is any uncommitted data was lost (obviously) and
> >> >>CHKDSK/Scandisk sometimes finds some lost sectors (that wouldn't have
> >> >>done any harm except waste a little bit of disk space).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >When I used to run Windows 3.11, I would sometimes get "cross-linked"
> >> >files. This means that the MS FAT implementation would sometimes mix
> >> >files together! ScanDisk would "fix" the problem by truncating one
> >> >of the affected files (usually the binary file that is impossible to
> >> >fix by hand). Usually, these problems were only discovered after they
> >> >were present for a long time. I've never had this problem on an ext2
> >> >filesystem.
> >>
> >> When i used to run Lienux, it woold sometimes crash, and it woold fsck for an
> >> hour and a haff and haff
> >> the fials woold get deleited. I pull the plug on Windos, and affter a short
>ScanDisk,
> >> it come's back up,
> >> no ploblem.
> >>
> >
> >fsck does NOT delete files, it moves them to the directory lost+found.
> >
> >Positive proof that timmy is a crack-head.
>
> And why does'nt this derectary appere in the Desktop?
Oh god! Hehe, you have got to be kidding!
Getting to used to hand holding Timmy?
Since it is file-system specific, lost+found is on each "partition", or
each filesystem seperately. That way you will know exactly what
"partition" the files in lost+found came from and you won't be forced to
try to figure it out yourself.
lost+found is not the recycle bin Timmy. lost+found is a much better
way of dealing with "lost" files compared to the Windows scandisk method
of just creating a million files in the root directory. How many people
have seen the root directory of a Windows machine with a huge number of
files from scandisk checks?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:17:41 -0500
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> It was a silly example but only partly a joke. If you think you understand
> the opposite sex you are most likely wrong. Otherwise, write the book...
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yep, as long as there is a way to say "you're wrong" to someone, there
isn't any reason to hold back is there?
I didn't say anywhere that I "understand" the opposite sex. I said that
I feel most differences can be explained by
environment/upbringing/training and such. That doesn't mean I
understand the differences themselves, just what causes them.
(I assume this will bring Mr. Kulkis back to tell me again what a
jackass I am?)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:48:37 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In alt.destroy.microsoft Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :
> : "I this WERE to happen". "Were" is the subjunctive, expressing a
> : contrary-to-fact
> : condition. Understood is: "but it will not happen". An example in
> : plainer English
> : "If I were a rich man" implying: "I am not".
> :
>
> This is a ridiculous play with words. You take 'were' here to imply
> 'that is not currently the case'. Then you make the ridiculously HUGE
> inference from that that it will NOT BE THE CASE. Max Devlin is talking
> about the future, you are talking about the present/past.
Firstly, I am not quoting Max Devlin, I am quoting the article to
which he refers.
Secondly, the subjunctive in a conditional proposition does serve
to express a contrary-to-fact condition. "If this was to happen"
leaves open the possibility that it may happen. "If this were" rules
it out.
Thirdly, I will freely admit that many native English speakers have
no idea of what the subjunctive conveys, as I have sometimes been
corrected for using it (saying "if I were" when I was not).
However... "usurp" now.
In fact your
> first interpretation of 'were' is wrong. 'If this WERE to happen' is
> merely speculating about the future, and says NOTHING about the present
> situation.
>
> : "USURP". I'll just copy the definition out of the Collins Cobuild,
> : about the best
> : dictionary of modern English there is: "If you usurp a job, role,
> : title, or
> : position, you take it from someone, especially when you have no right
> : to
> : do this."
>
> Do you mean here that Microsoft has NO right to OS dominance?
You got *this* right (oh, a pun!).
> The 'right' is probably meant to mean: 'given Microsoft's financial
> size and historical dominance' as supposed to 'given Microsoft's fine
> workmanship'.
I am quoting the Cobuild, and its authors certainly did not construct
that definition for the benefit of Microsoft. All right, I'll quote
the 22-volume Oxford: "usurp... to appropriate wrongfully". Is that
clear enough?
The gist of the article to which Max Devlin referred is clear:
1. Linux will not "gain measurable market share in the desktop
audience"
2. The share it may gain is "usurped," i.e. wrongfully appropriated.
That is called (*snicker*) unbiased reporting.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux User Groups - What is going on?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:55:54 -0500
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Here in the DFW area, we have both an active LUG and an active UNIX
> Users Group. Both groups commonly tell their respective memberships
> of major activities that the other organization organizes.
You have at least 2 active LUGs in the DFW area...North Texas Linux User's
Group (NTLUG) and Fort Worth Linux User's Group (FWLUG). Is there a reason
that NTLUG keeps pretending FWLUG doesn't exist? (And doing their best to
make sure nobody hears of FWLUG?)
------------------------------
From: [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, 26 Jul 2000 10:51:51 -0500
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:23:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>Yes, you can go to a small, local store and get exactly what you want.
>>>But Jedi is right in pointing out just how small a segment of the market
>>>those kind of people are.
>>
>>And how small is the population that would ever buy a box with Linux
>>on it?
>
> My colleagues are just going nutz over Tivo's at the moment
> actually...
That's a completely different market. They're buying Tivos because
they want to record videos, not use a computer. Your point is
completely meaningless to the discussion.
>>>You, me, Jedi . . . we might all be willing to put together our own
>>>systems, or patronize a trusted "hole in the wall shop", but the average
>>>consumer wants an information appliance, which is why the iMac sold so
>>>very well ("Step three . . . there is no step three . . . imagine
>>>that!").
>>
>>:)
>>
>>Then Jedi can't really suggest these people would ever run Linux....
>
> There's quite a difference between admitting that few
> people would ever be exposed to Linux and coming to the
> conclusion that it would never suit them.
>
>[deletia]
>
> You can state the same of OS/2, Solaris, BeOS and to some
> extent MacOS.
Not at all true - MacOS in particular has consumers that like it and
ask for it; this forum is proof of that. (CSMA). CUSA has demand
for Macs; I suggest there is little or no demand for Linux, and that's
why they don't carry machines with it.
------------------------------
From: [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, 26 Jul 2000 10:52:29 -0500
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:26:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:07:26 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In the grocery stores they (P&G, etc.) have PAID for shelf space for
>>their products. I'm mystified that you don't see this as a massive
>>issue.
>
>Interestingly, the FTC has begun an investigation into this practice.
Yep. :)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:08:26 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Tim Palmer wrote:
> You Lie-nux iddiot. UNIX is crap.
Whale cum bakc, Tymm, butt eye sea your knot quight
recuverd, meight. Hear, lett mee helgh(*) u:
You -> ue, ewe, yoo, yew, BUTT KNOT "you"!
UNIX -> Eunuchs, Yoonuchz, ect., BUTT KNOT "UNIX"!
is -> iz, izz, si, BUTT KNOT "is"!
crap -> kragh (*) BUTT KNOT "crap"!
(*) the "gh" is courtesy of "hiccough"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:19:55 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dresden's copyrights (Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?)
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> abraxas wrote:
> > You are an IT professional.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Drestin Address, an IT *professional* [!!??]
Depends what you take IT to be an acronym for.
Information Technology? Er...
Inner Twat? Possibly.
We still haven't heard about those copyrights,
and the famous shop that registers copyrights,
BTW. Please, I can't hold my breath very much
longer.
------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:19:20 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:22:30 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:25:50 -0700,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> Medium is really the only choice to make with
>> Mandrake because if you select paranoid it turns
>> off just about everything and things like ppp
>> don't even work.
>
>So you mean that Mandrake's highest security setting is too secure. That
>violates your original premis in this thread.
Stop splitting hairs.
Mandrake paranoid setting is virtually useless because just about
everything is either turned off, or not even installed. PPP for
instance.
>> You're comparing apples and oranges. I did default
>> installs, not touching anything other than setting
>> up kppp with my dialup numbers etc.
>
>While you may be talking about the Mandrake distribution of the Linux
>operating system, your subject line is inclusive of all Linux. So any Linux
>configuration that proves the invalidity of your premis is valid evidence.
And in the first sentence I mention the 2 distributions I tested, but
people around here seem to have a difficult time reading properly.
***Insert Cheap-Shot****
Maybe it has to do with looking at those crappy Netscape fonts all day
long.
**end Cheap-Shot*****
>> On a default install, everything I stated is true.
>> You can check it yourself if you wish.
>
>I am not disputing what the defaults installation of that distributions are.
>I am disputing your claims as it extends to ALL Linux, which you subject
>line includes.
You guys are really getting desperate...
I point out something and you guys start playing semantics.
>I am also questioning your motive is starting this thread since your have
>setup your Linux host the way you did by your specific choices. You have
>reject the more secure configuration and then complain about the lack of
>security.
See above.
Have you ever tried Mandrake 7.x on the paranoid setting?
If not, I suggest you try it. Almost useless unless you want to spend
all weekend hand installing and configuring the things it leaves out.
Someone else pointed that out.
>As you know, inetd runs vvery few services like chargen, time, daytime, and
>echo. The remainder of the ports it may listen on are not serviced by
>inetd, rather inetd will execute the deamon that provides the service if and
>when a connection is established on one of those ports. If your don't have
>the daemond installed then inted would not be able to execute them and the
>services would not be available. You can also turn off those services by
>modifing inetd's configuration.
I am talking default install, for the 10th time.
I didn't modify Windows 98SE with ics and grc.com show much better
security for that box. Several other sites said exactly the same
thing.
>You already know that a Linux host can be configured to run any services you
>what and restrict it to only accept connections to the services from certain
>network interfaces and not others. You can also configure a Linux host to
>accept the connections from only some networks or individual hosts. You can
>use any combination of these restrictions for any of your services in any
>combination.
Anything can be configured to do anything.
Default install, the one the majority of new users are going to use.
>The restrictions can be enforced at the any level you prefer. The
>restrictions can be enforced by the packet filtering firewall. The
>restrictions can be enforced by proxies. The rescrictions can be enforsed
>by tcp wrappers. The restrictions can be enforced by the internet super
>daemon. The restrictions can be enforce be the individual daemons. -- or
>by any combination of these and additional methods.
If you are able, or willing to read geek code blocks all day.
>So, I do question your motives for startng this thread.
And what does that have to do with the FACT's.
Try the 2 distributions for yourself and see.
Typical Linvocate.
You guys are really starting to become a sad lot.
I point out some facts, which nobody has been able to dis-prove, and
don't bother because I really did install both those distributions,
and you start playing semantic games.
Pretty desperate.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!!
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:10:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jenny-poo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2000 10:14:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
> It also poses a large threat. Why do you think Sun gives away Solaris
> now? hint: it's not cuz of Windows!
>
Does Sun just make money just on Solaris/Software? Didn't think so.
Here's an article on how IDC sees Linux affecting Microsoft:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12157.html
That speck of sand sure can make your eye itch, eh Jen?
Looks like the biggest pyramid scheme of all time may be about to
implode - isn't it fun to watch!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:26:38 GMT
Thank yo Aaron, at least you read that I talked about 2 distributions
and mentioned them specifically.
I'm going try Caldera and TurboLinux today and see what happens, just
for kicks.
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:37:18 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Davorin Mestric wrote:
>>
>> > That is NOT a problem with linux,
>>
>> you see, linux is perfect.
>
>No.. the problem is clearly a configuration problem on ONE distribution.
>The original poster document this himself.
>
>Now, run along and play in the traffic.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
