Linux-Advocacy Digest #998, Volume #27 Wed, 26 Jul 00 20:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux is just plain awful ("John W. Stevens")
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts renting
apps) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is just plain awful ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Why use Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Josiah Fizer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:36:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jacques Guy in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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).
Your point was quite misconstrued, I'm afraid. I noted myself when
spoofing the text that the "were" communicated just the idea which
you've described. Not being any more rigorously trained in English than
I am in mathematics (but being much more comfortable within the field),
I wouldn't know to call it a subjunctive in a conditional proposition.
Your comments were somewhat indeterminate in whether you were
criticizing or explaining this usage. I got the impression you were
explaining it, and think I've misread you. You were criticizing it?
>However... "usurp" now.
[...]
>> Do you mean here that Microsoft has NO right to OS dominance?
>
>You got *this* right (oh, a pun!).
>
>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.
Actually it's called FUD.
After the verbal part of the MS FUD campaign following the disclosure of
the Halloween documents, which included this gem from ZD as well as the
interview with Ed Muth I've already mentioned, the technical attempt to
undermine reality began.
Microsoft hired a company to do "benchmarks" so that they could 'prove'
that Linux wasn't up to competing with NT. Unfortunately, MindCraft,
the supposed research firm, didn't bother mentioning that they had been
paid by Microsoft to run the tests on Microsoft-provided equipment with
direct technical support from Microsoft engineers. Once the details
were made known following the skepticism of the supposedly 'independent
research' written by MindCraft and published on the ITWeb bulletin page,
Ian Hutton, a PR rep for MS, admitted that the NT server was highly
optimized, and the Linux server was poorly tuned. This was, of course,
just another opportunity for FUD to a stand-up PR guy like Ian. He
claimed that the poor Linux tuning was the Linux community's fault,
falsely claiming that MindCraft did not receive responses to their
requests for help. In fact, MindCraft received extremely prompt
requests, which did, of course, ask for further detailed information
concerning the problem or issue. MindCraft did not respond. MS,
through Hutton, "...still trust the Windows NT server would have
outperformed the Linux one."
A full accounting of the events, including such details as the fact that
MindCraft/MS purposefully chose a debilitating and non-sensical logging
configuration for apache on Linux, can be found on Slash-dot.
http://slashdot.org/features/99/04/23/1316228.shtml
Was this enough to quell the tide of FUD? Certainly not, we're just
getting started. MindCraft was entirely discredited when it became
known that Microsoft had paid for the 'independent' research, and the
results had been rigged so purposefully. Could the dominant independent
research firm, Gartner Group, be so easily manipulated, and possibly
ruined?
What for the next exciting adventure in the life of our favorite
criminal organization....
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, 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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:34:24 -0600
Pan wrote:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> > That said... Tcl and Perl are both interpretive languages (note that
> > Perl is compiled into an intermediate form).
>
> I thought that Perl is interpreted entirely at run-time.
Nope. Java, Perl and Python all share this common pattern: they are
compiled to an intermediate form, and that intermediate form is then
executed by an interpreter.
In the case of Java, that intermediate form was deliberately designed to
be usable as a machine language.
That said:
Python is easier to learn than Perl or Java, requires less re-learning
than Perl does, by it's very nature is easier to read, and due in part
to that, and in part to a much more rational syntax, has a lower defect
rate.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:39:43 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Patrik Arvhult wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes a few GOTO statements is the most efficient/optimal coding in C
> > code. But too many of them isn't nice to read.
>
> On rare occasions, yes.
>
> abort();
> exit();
These first two do *NOT* do what you want them to do in kernel space!
> and break;
Which works, but can end up forcing you to write bloatware.
> are usually superior.
"Usually"? Maybe, but there are places where a goto is superior to
anything else.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
renting apps)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:47:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.fan.bill-gates;
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>You didn't copy the actual routine. Just the format.
>
>http://i-want-a-website.com/about-microsoft/yamoo/jokes.html
>
>But most importantly... yours wasn't funny or clever.
Scanning through the "MS Mouseballs" site you referenced, I didn't see
anything about "Microsoft Apartments" or similar things. I saw about
twenty or more "Microsoft Acquires..." jokes, including the archetypical
"Microsoft Acquires Microsoft Acquires." Perhaps you should go accuse
the author of that of being derivative and "copying the format" of the
long tradition of anti-MS humor.
I find most of them more amusing than the typical reader might, and I
though Aaron's was one of the more original I'd seen. He kind of
muddled things by talking about the number of sides on a tire (it would
have been better as a secondary piece that stood on its own), but it was
quite innovative.
Thanks again for the effort, Aaron. I just have one question. Where
did you originally post it, and why was the copy I saw already quoted
material?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, 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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:43:13 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I find the above more readable, if slightly less efficient. To avoid
> the goto without sacrificing the cycles the extra comparisons take,
> you could replace it with "i=j=k=10;", but of course that would
> be similarly ugly (and would definitely require a comment as to what
> it *really* means). Oh, and all those "10" should be #define-d constants ;-)
Goto's are superior in those cases where a resource has been locked, and
must be unlocked before exiting the function, but there are multiple
failure points.
Intead of putting an Unlock/return in multiple locations (and risking
the chance of forgetting one, as well as making the code much more
bloated), a goto is much better.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:56:26 GMT
Se?n ? Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Microsoft doesn't force you to use IE as your primary Web browser. You
> can use it to download Navigator and never use again, if that's what
> you want. So what's the problem?
Microsoft's repeated claims that you couldn't remove Explorer without
irreversibly crippling Windows, for one.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:00:20 +0200
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lars Träger escribió:
> >
> > Yeah, but how many PC users chose their OS *because* it had PMT instead
> > of CMT? Those .5% of PC users are just the ones who *switched* to one
> > model (in the 2 years of its existance) despite CMT, about 10x as much
> > (more if you don't count those who haven't bought a new Mac in the last
> > 2 years) still use the MacOS, not an OS with PMT.
>
> That matches pretty well with the statement I made, that CMT is adequate
> for Mac users most of the time.
>
> > And those are only the ones who made it obvious that they thought other
> > things are more important than PMT. If MS hadn't switched to PMT in
> > Win95, more than 80% of PC users would still use CMT.
>
> And cursing it. Or have we already forgotten that windows 95 is, in
> general, way more stable than windows 3.1, and less blocking?
Sure, they'd swear and curse. And use it, like there is no other.
I have forgotten 3.1 long ago, but 95 is still less stable and almost as
blocking as MacOS. Add to that the fact that the Interface stinks and
the "Plug'n'Play" makes me lose my hair.
> Both things are related to it being PMT.
Yeah. In theory. In theory, theory is like praxis, but in praxis it
isn't.
> In this series of meaningless statements, we could say that 99% of
> PC users switched from CMT to PMT. There have been way more people
> switching from CMT to PMT than from PMT to CMT, no matter how
> you measure them.
But did they switch *because* of PMT?
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:00:22 +0200
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lars Träger wrote:
>
> > Apart from the PMT systems that never pretended to have protected
> > memory, there always is Win9x
>
> Which is less likely to crash than Windows 3.1 . . . a CMT system.
>
> > (and the increased stability of theMacOS
> > against crashing apps despite *not* having prot.mem.
>
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. In actual fact, the increased ability of
> the MacOS to protect against crashing apps is almost entirely due to the
> implementation of a limited amount of protected memory.
>
> It is, in fact, the legacy of CMT that keeps the MacOS from implementing
> much more PM than it currently does.
So what's the excuse for Win9x? I had Photoshop crash the machine on
Win98SE while zooming or cropping. Never happened to me on a Mac.
You also ignored PMT systems without PM.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:53:39 -0600
MH wrote:
>
> Besides, all the
> Linux distros are just as guilty as MS when it comes to bugs.
Umm . . . no. Not true.
> I've got core
> files galore after ANY install of ANY Linux distro.
I find that highly doubtful. I've never seen core files after an
installation.
> Half of the stuff just
> doesn't work.
Nope. I've seen a few, very rare, ALPHA release programs core dump, but
still, that is very, very rare.
I suspect that you are exaggerating wildly, or that you are doing
something you haven't mentioned.
> Do you hear me whining about it? No, I just accept it as part
> and parcel of the state of software today and move on. I also choose to use
> the best web browsing - email - news reader software that I can use.
> Windows provides that, hands down.
What, Netscape? That runs on Linux, too. Or were you thinking about
sendmail/elm/pine/mutt/etc., which as far as I know, only run on Unix?
> There really is no crime in using both, you know.
Yes, there is. Using Windows is like throwing your data into a big,
black hole, then jumping in after it.
Hey, being in a black hole isn't so bad, but . . . when you try to get
out, you're well and truly screwed.
I use applications that are either themselves open source, or that
read/write/use data that conforms to open, public standards, so that I
can work as independently as possible of application/OS issues.
> What, I'm supposed to feel ashamed because
> I use windows? Why do so many Linux users have that attitude?
Using Windows == Using Drugs. ;-)
> What is the
> obvious inadequacy they are attempting (badly) to cover up? Life is short,
> drop the zealotry, come back to planet earth, and get something done.
I do . . . by avoiding Windows and MS applications like the plague.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[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: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:00:14 -0700
Chad Irby wrote:
> Se?n ? Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Microsoft doesn't force you to use IE as your primary Web browser. You
> > can use it to download Navigator and never use again, if that's what
> > you want. So what's the problem?
>
> Microsoft's repeated claims that you couldn't remove Explorer without
> irreversibly crippling Windows, for one.
>
IE is far more then the browers. Removing IE will damage windows. Removing
the web browsers will effect nothing.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
