Linux-Advocacy Digest #29, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: God damm Microsoft (Steve)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Rich Teer)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait! (bill davidsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:09:56 GMT
In article <8lkfc6$4ih$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8lhqsc$sme$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8l58vb$hbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- snip --
> > > 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
>
> No, to anyone with the gumption to pick up a PC magazine, or a local
> paper, and look for appropriate sellers. Such businesses existed in
> Australia, so I find it difficult to believe they didn't exist in the
> US. This is for an entire system, as well.
You seem to enjoy going around in circles; "anyone with the gumption"
typically rules out Joe and Jane, as I've been saying. Joe and Jane
typically do *not* buy PC magazines -- they buy People and Cosmo and
National Enquirer. Joe and Jane buy their computers at Wal-Mart or Best
Buy or Circuit City or maybe CompUSA. Joe and Jane want to *see* the
product they buy, not necessarily read about it and look at boring
feature lists. Joe and Jane wanna take a test drive and kick the tires.
Typically.
Thank you for your support.
> > about Joe and Jane General Consumer and the typical retail channel,
> > which dc has already admitted that MS has "sewed up pretty tight."
>
> And which alternative OS would you have proposed Joe and Jane consumer
> use ?
What I propose is that they have a choice; I, most emphatically, do not
propose making that decision for them, as Microsoft has done.
> > > 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.
>
> *sigh*. Your claim, basically, was that PCs without Windows were not
> available to anyone except people with the expertise to build them.
Wrong. Go back and re-read what I've been saying.
> THis is, for lack of a better word, bullshit.
It is indeed. Good thing I never said it.
> > > > Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue.
> > >
> > > False.
> >
> > Uh-huh. "Proof by Proclamation" strikes again.
>
> Indeed, much like your proof by proclamation that PCs weren't
> avaialble without Windows.
I guess it's *my* turn to *Sigh* . . .
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with what I said:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=648208302&fmt=text
"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."
Now, I will admit to some poetic license coupled with exaggeration, but
the above does prove you wrong.
And please, try not to confuse the word "county" with "country." No, it
isn't a typo.
> > > > 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.
Well, hell. I didn't even have to go to the trouble, did I? But you
still won't get it.
> > > 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.
>
> No, they cater to the mass market, and the mass market wants
> Microsoft.
Because MS has seen to it that MS is all that's available. Still going
around in circles, I see.
> Businesses are out to make money, nothing more, and if they aren't
> delivering the products that their customers want, then they go broke.
Spare us the lame, simplistic platitudes. They add nothing to the
dicussion.
> > Obviously, you haven't been paying atention to the trial.
>
> I have, and it makes no difference.
Obviously. It makes no difference that you've been "paying attention"
when you remain ignorant of the testimony.
> > > 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.
>
> From people like you, apparently advocating such a chain of events.
The fallacy remains, and claiming me to be the source is yet another
fallacy.
> > 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.
>
> Where do you get the silly notion that the Government is responsible
> for Microsoft's "very existence" ?
What part of "exist as a Corporation" do you not comprehend?
> > Also, Government's first order of business has to be
> > self-preservation.
>
> No, Government's first order of business *is* self preservation.
> Government's first order of business *should be* satisfying the whims
> and needs of the population that are the reason it exists.
(LOL!) You have an interesting view. I honestly didn't realize that
"the population [is] the reason" Dictatorships and Monarchies existed.
If you are speaking about the US and its Constitution, I must of missed
the text which reads " . . . and satisfy the whims and needs of the
population . . ."
Perhaps you would care to point us to that passage?
> > 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.
>
> A pity that all this is decided rather arbitrarily.
It may seem arbitrary to the ignorant, but then, so does the Universe as
a whole.
Deal with it.
> If "the law" could somehow be applied objectively, you'd have a point,
> but that would be impossible.
Assuming this to be true, what would you suggest? Abolishing Law?
Implementing Anarchy?
Look, Microsoft had a trial according to their rights, and were found
Guilty. They had their day in Court, their arguments were heard, but
they f*cking LOST.
Deal with it.
And spare us the whiny "it's all so arbitrary, it's not objective"
drivel.
-- snip --
> > > > MS *has* been found guilty of criminal behavior. The proposed
> > > > solution is dubious, obviously, but until they win on appeal or
> > > > in the Supreme Court, MS are criminals.
> > >
> > > Yes, well, by your much touted legal system OJ is an innocent man.
> >
> > "Much touted" by whom, exactly?
>
> Anyone who uses the argument "Microsoft broke the law" as their only
> rebuttal. This implies a belief that the law is always correct, which
> is, at best, a foolish stance to take.
But it is somehow not foolish to imply a belief that anything MS does is
okay and correct?
> > But yes, you are partially correct; OJ was found "Not Guilty" by our
> > system. Too bad, but the fact that everyone is convinced of OJ's
> > alleged guilt is irrelevant to the actual case, and is
> > representative of why we have such a system. I suppose we could just
> > rely on lynch mobs to appease people such as yourself who would
> > elect themselves Judge, Jury and Executioner, and simply hang OJ
> > from the highest branch of the nearest tree without a trial.
>
> I would have done no such thing. My point was that the process of law
> is, at best, questionable, so IMHO using the line "xxxxxx broke the
> law" as a justification, is worthless.
I'm not trying to "justify" anything. *YOU* were the one claiming that
"nothing will change." Just a few years ago, people in your camp were
saying "nothing MS does is illegal, it's just good business."
I'm simply reminding all concerned that that particular fallacy has been
laid to rest.
And before you start whining again, let me remind you that MS had their
day in court, and had more money to spend on Dream Team Lawyers than OJ
had.
Yet they were still found Guilty.
> "The law is an ass" is a line that springs instantly to mind.
Especially when it doesn't agree with your personal feelings, eh?
-- snip --
> I'm afraid I'm not privy to the subtleties of American political
> agendas, so the "Reagan appointee" is lost on me.
Reagan is a *pro-business* Republican.
> However, the impression I got throughout the entire show was that the
> judge had made his decision, at least in concept, very early in the
> entire case. He also demonstrates a fair amount of misunderstanding of
> the industry and lacks background knowledge on the topic.
To which I say, "Good for him, and More Power to him."
In spades.
Look, it is not a Judge's responsibility to be an expert in every field
in which he may have to render a ruling or judgement. It's up to the
attorneys to present evidence and build a case. It's up to the
paralegals to do the background research.
That's how this "much touted" system is supposed to work. If MS lost,
they have only themselves to blame, considering their legal and
financial resources (not to mention their overall behavior). Trying to
pin blame on "lack of objectivity" or "arbitrariness" or an "ignorant
yet biased Judge" is simply whining.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 13:21:42 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Traditional behavior is that if the execute bits are set, then
> >the text remains resident in core.
>
> This seems related, but distinct, from the explanation I got, which was
> that the sticky bit (with execute bits set) dealt with access
> permissions. The easiest example to use would be "traceroute", or the
> old "etherfind". These programs require root permissions to run. But
> if you set the sticky bit with the owner of the file being root, then
> anyone can execute them.
That's the "Set User ID" bit.
Runs the executable under the ID of whoever owns the file.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= 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! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:22:16 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >Maybe I'm perfectly HAPPY with the current policies of those
> >> >corporations.
> >> And I'm sure you'd keep on being "happy" even if they tried to
> >> get some money to Al Gore's Presidential campaign.
>
> >Considering Algore's current beliefs viz a viz public policy, I
> >would say that an executive of any corporation that doesn't have a
> >direct AND SUBSTANTIAL interest in electric cars (regardless of
> >efficiency) would be idiotic to contribute to Algore's campaign.
>
> Dream on. A lot of big business leaders are willing to contribute
> to the Democratic Party, if only to insure that both likely alternatives
> are thoroughly bought.
So, you admit that the Democrats are a bunch of whores.
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:25:54 GMT
On 27 Jul 2000 15:04:14 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>: On 26 Jul 2000 20:19:30 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: >I think 'rpm' is a fine package, but it is really more about managing
>: >dependancies than about reducing them. I think the interesting thing to
>: >glean from Component-Oriented studies is how to reduce interactions. If
>: >an application and its libraries were able to be upgraded independantly,
>: >'rpm' would have a much easier job.
>
>: ...this is all fine and dandy until your component changes
>: at some fundemental level. Throwing flim-flam at the problem
>: isn't going to make this issue go away.
>
>By 'flim-flam', you mean research like this of course?
>
> http://www.ics.uci.edu/~franz/ComponentSW.html
Yes, Flim Flam.
How is a little more information hiding going to solve the
problem of "the web of dependencies"? Shared library
systems already manage concurrent revisions of interfaces.
Besides, this research appears to be primarily addressing the
sorts of problems that the tools that people such as your self
have been hyping to begin with.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 13:25:06 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:28:22 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:16:23 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>If people keep popping up with it, it isn't a bogus argument.
> >>>
> >>>Tell it to Galileo.
> >>
> >>I missed the reference. Galileo?
> >
> >Apparently he found it hard to convince people that the earth revolves
> >around the sun. I think it was Galileo, it's been a while.
>
> Ah, yes. Copernicus had already established the issue. Galileo
> "simply" observed that Jupiter has moons encircling it, just as the
> Earth does (and therefore presumably just as both Earth and Jupiter
> orbit the Sun), and pointed out this supported Copernicus' conclusions.
>
> I think that's how it went, anyway. I know I was always confused by why
> they said Copernicus discovered the heliocentric system, but Galileo was
> the one thrown in jail for it.
Copernicus worked out the math, but never published about it.
Galileo made the mistake of publishing....which got him in trouble
with the church.
After that, he published "fiction", with character names like
"Simplicio" and "Intelligentsio"
No, no, you can't prosecute me. Any coincidence between my views
and those expressed by Intelligentsio...and the clergy's views, and
those expressed by Simplicio are....simply coincidental.
heh heh heh
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= 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! =-----
--
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: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: God damm Microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:29:18 GMT
A word of warning. My cousin just went through an Outlook Express
upgrade about a month ago and lost all of his archived mail in the
process. No warning, no nothing.
Just gone
I don't have the specifics, but he was madder than hell.
On 27 Jul 2000 16:43:12 GMT, Jeff Silverman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Here are the patch instructions for MS Outlook,
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/download/critical/patch9.htm It says that if you
>have an older
>version, you are still vulnerable, but you have to upgrade first and then install the
>patch. It then
>refers you to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/download/default.htm which has the
>list of updates
>for IE - they have come out with 4 of them in the past 2 months! If each patch takes
>10 minutes and
>I have 50 PCs (which have to reboot), that's 500 minutes or 40+ hours.
>
>Because I have to reboot the PCs, I can't do this remotely.
>
>
>Outlook is an application!
>
>
>Jeff
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:29:29 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:43:00 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> >> I don't know how one would make a distinctive tape deck. But then, I
>> >> don't think that one needs to copy the concept of "skins" either.
>>
>> This is pure BULLSHIT. The notion of 'skins' is nothing
>> more than a reimplementation of X Window Manager themes.
>> It is this aspect of X that allows it to take on the WinDOS
>> like appearance that seems to distress you so.
>
> Since you quoted something that I wrote, I'm going to assume you
> meant me. So: When did I say the WinDOS appearance distressed me?
>
>
>> A winamp skin that was more than window dressing would
>> actually be quite a relief. I could fix the design
>> limitations of the original interface.
>
> Yes, I would also like that.
>
>
>> Intuitive = familiar.
>>
>> KDE, at the very least is trying to attack that end of usability.
>
> Pulling on the reins of a horse was a familiar user interface for
> steering, but they didn't work when applied to motor vehicles.
That sort of thing only works when there is some useful
relationship between the objects compared.
>
> Fortunately, the controls needed for a motor vehicle are very simple
> and few, so the ideal interface evolved quickly. The controls for a
> computer and all the programs it can run are complex and
> numerous. It's likely that the UI we're using now is not the best.
So?
Unix has a long history of allowing the end user to replace
any and all subcomponent of the user interface. This includes
the bits that might be 'too derivative' or 'too derivative'
of the 'wrong interface'.
IOW: if you think we are restricted to 'reigns', you don't know
what you are talking about.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:32:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> > I know about classics such as Emacs, but what others can you think
> > of? (This is not meant to contest, just looking for personal
> > enlightenment. Oh, and that Window Manager sucks, too.)
>
> Lex is also a good example.
Was Lex copied by someone else the same way Microsoft copied ideas
from their competitors?
> It's not at all apparent that you are paying any attention
> to the periphery.
Why did you say that?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:32:22 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:53:04 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> > How does this change the point that most Linux applications are
>> > copies of something else?
>>
>> It makes the point moot.
>
> No. If I say that a lot of software written for Linux has copied
> features and user interface elements from other programs, then simply
> pointing out that the "other programs" /also/ copied ideas does not
> make my point moot.
>
> If software written for Linux has been copying ideas, then it has
> been copying ideas.
LinUX, copying ideas? Imagine that...
[deletia]
Again, your point is moot and based on the dellusion that
originality is a common thing when infact nearly everything
is quite derivative. Even the apparently original is usually
highly derivative and the creators of it will be quite upfront
about their 'borrowing'. (Jobs, Plant)
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:34:03 GMT
On 27 Jul 2000, Jay Maynard wrote:
> I've never understood the disdain some folks have for package management.
> What's wrong with letting the computer do things the computer's good at,
> like record-keeping?
Lack of real-world, enterprise class, computing experiance would be by bet.
--
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
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:36:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> You exhibit characeristics common to those that use Microsoft
> as a security blanket and can't see past it for they haven't
> really been exposed to anything else.
...he said after citing exampl....
Damn, they keep failing to do that. Perhaps it's because it's a
baseless accusation built on thin air and their dependance on a phony
safety blanket is too strong for them to risk revealing it's not
there.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: 27 Jul 2000 17:37:32 GMT
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Anthony D. Tribelli" wrote:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > DR-DOS implemented true Multi-processing in 1985, yet Microsoft
>> > didn't accomplish the same task for another 8 years.
>>
>> Bad guess. Microsoft offered a Unix implementation called XENIX, IIRC -
>> and later sold to SCO, and also OS/2.
>
> MS didn't accomplish this in Windows for another 8 years.
Of course not, they wanted people to move over to OS/2. Multiprocessing
was one of the lures to migrate from DOS-Windows to OS/2-Presentation
Manager. It was a strategic decision. Windows was initially described to
developers as a bridge to get people from DOS to OS/2, and developers were
reasured that the Windows and OS/2-PM APIs were nearly identical. It was
not until Microsoft decided to keep everyone on Windows and to abandon
OS/2 that they decided Windows needed multiprocessing.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait!
Date: 27 Jul 2000 17:42:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| First, I have a laptop I want to install "Unix" on. I've installed Linux
| on desktops several times in the past (starting with Ygdrasil), but I have
| the feeling I may have fun with the BackPack parallel port CD-ROM drive.
| So, question 1: which of the modern releases is likely to install easily on
| a laptop with about 0.5GB of disk space, 24MB of RAM, and a parallel port
| CD-ROM drive?
Since it's small on disk, I'd suggest Slackware. Hell, I would anyway,
but particularly here. And it supports PCMCIA net cards, SL/IP, PPP
serial, and PL/IP parallel. If it were me I'd consider buying a Laplink
cable and doing a network install, rather than the Backpack. However, I
think you can use it, I just haven't played with one. I presume that's
what the parallel IDE device stuff enables.
Oh, Slackware will still allow you to install from floppy sets, at
least enough to get networking going, or install from parallel port ZIP
drive.
Hope one of those options helps.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
There are those who make things happen, those who watch things happen,
and those who wonder what happened.
-- idea from _Pickles_
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
