Linux-Advocacy Digest #141, Volume #28 Mon, 31 Jul 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Which Linux should I try? (Sorry, reposting to correct error) ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh ("KLH")
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Secretly Cruel)
Re: OT: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Courageous)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Colin R. Day")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("2 + 2")
Re: Slipping away into time. ("KLH")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Does VB and SQL work under linux? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("2 + 2")
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced ("John Riddoch")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Colin R. Day")
Linux runs 30% of the WWW. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:05:35 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> >>
> >
> >I was criticizing the implicit claim that government officials, on
> >average, have more/better foresight.
>
> And I don't see where I am making such an implicit claim. When you
> compare foresight of business to foresight of Goverment you are
> comparing apples to oranges, becuase the priorities are totally
> different. When company ABC considers developing product XYZ, they do
> an economic analysis. When they determine that the upfront R&D cost is
> so high it could be twenty years or more before they break even they
> shelve it. In contrast, when the government considers making upfront
> R&D investments, they are considering "Benefits to Society". These
> "Benefits to Society" could be social, military, economic, or a
> combination of these. These benefits are extremely hard to quantify in
> terms of dollars and yet must be compared the required tax
> expendetures to determine their worth. Because of the subjective
> nature of these benefits it will always be a matter of opinion, and
> the opinions of the voters are the ones that matter.
But it's being a matter of opinion is the problem.
> Now a socialist
> might tell you that since Government is interest in overall benefits
> to society instead of simply profit or loss, it would have more
> forsight.
First, is government interested in the overall benefit to society?
Second, without a calculation of profit and loss, including the
opportunity costs of foregone alternatives, how is the
government to maximize overall social benefit?
> But a capitalist might tell you the opposite is true,
> bacause competition and bottom line economics for the private
> enterprises forces them to think with forsight in order to
> survive. Both are nice in theory. However in the real world you have
> to look at things on a case by case basis to see what factors really
> apply.
>
<snip>
>
> >> less desirable job where they won't be in the way. So civil servants
> >> ultimately have to follow their superiors, who follow the
> >> Congress. But whether or not Congress answers to the voters is
> >> ultimately up to the voters. And whether or not the voters have
> >> forsight is also ultimately up to the voters. The weakest link in
> >> Goverment today is the voters, not civil servants.
> >>
> >
> >But how do voters identify the problem?
>
> Identify what problem?? I'm just telling you the chain of command in
> the Government. If the voters do not participate, that's their
> problem.
And how can the voters participate? The primaries were over before
many people even got to vote in them.
>
>
> >Also, a business gets feedback of the most brutal kind: if
> >it doesn't sell the goods, it loses money.
>
> True.
>
> > Note that this
> >feedback can be fine-tuned to different products from
> >the same company.
>
> And Governmnent budgets consist of many separate line items, for
> various Government services. How is business more fine tuned??
>
But at the federal level, the president must approve or reject the budget
as a whole, as he has no line-item veto. But more importantly, how can
government officials gauge the effects of small changes in policy?
>
> >The government is not as restricted
> >in its long-range action, but it has less fine-tuned
> >correction if it makes errors.
>
> How is business more "fine tuned" than Government?? I'm not sure what
> you're sayiing here.
>
Businesses have competitors, for one.
>
> >>
> >> Also consider that in Japan, industry workers are guaranteed a job for
> >> life when they are hired. The rationale behind this is that they will
> >> be more devoted, and will not be working in constant fear. If a worker
> >> has a job that is not going to change for 10 or 20 years, there no
> >> longer is any short term goal, so why not act with forsight?? Compare
> >> that to private businesses in the U.S., where they want you to put in
> >> 20 hours per week overtime without pay, take no more the one week
> >> vacation, and as soon as they don't need you, you're out the
> >> door. It's quite obvious why American workers are not committed to the
> >> employers: their employers (who lack the forsight themselves) are not
> >> committed to them. Some U.S. Government agencies have caught onto this
> >> problem in U.S. industry and are looking at more intelligable
> >> approaches to human resources. Hence you will find some civil servants
> >> who are more committed to their jobs and have more forsight than thier
> >> private industry counterparts.
> >>
> >
> >Some private firms (Krupp and Ford at some point) had similar policies,
> >and for much the same reason.
>
> Yes. Not all private firms are so abusive or their most precious resource.
>
> >> >
> >> >Really? Thomas Jackson and Microsoft might disagree there.
> >>
> >> How so? How is the MS trial effecting Government investments
> >> (Congressional appropriations) in technology areas, i.e., NSF, DOE,
> >> NASA, NOAA, research grants, etc. etc.
> >
> >It will certainly affect Microsoft's efforts if Jackson's ruling is upheld.
>
> Which has little to do with Government appropriations in technology
> areas and everything to do with antitrust economics. Monopolism is
> IMHO one area where the theory of capitalism turns out to be only
> a theory.
>
Are you saying that this will have little effect, although it may affect
Microsoft's competitors more than Microsoft.
>
> Perry
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:09:51 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Originally chartered by the Government in 1864, and given a 10 million
> >> acre land grant, it took nearly 30 years to fund and went thru several
> >> bankruptcies.
> >>
> >> Perry
> >
> > The Burlington Northern was formed in 1979 primarily by the combination
> >of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy and the Great Northern railroads.
> >There may have been additional smaller roads included (anyone?).
> > If there was a BN of 1864, is definitely not the BN of today (and
> >anyway, today it's the BNSF).
> >--
>
> The specific railroad we are discussing in this thread is the
> transcontinental route from the Midwest to Seattle. This was built by
> the Northern Pacific Railroad Company which was chartered in 1864. It
> was later merged with Chicago, Burlington & Quincy.
> See http://www.bnsf.com/about_bnsf/html/history.html
>
> Perry
No, it was the Great Northern.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:11:16 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:06:45 -0700,
> Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Yet it was a transcontinental railroad, built with private funds,
> >for purely pecuniary goals.
> >
>
> Originally chartered by the Government in 1864, and given a 10 million
> acre land grant, it took nearly 30 years to fund and went thru several
> bankruptcies.
Not the Great Northern.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux should I try? (Sorry, reposting to correct error)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:12:03 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Loach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Do yourself a favor and don't buy Corel.
> >>
> >> I allready did myself a favor and deleated Lienux completly. Now I halve Windo's
>and I am happie.
> >
> >Which half did you keep?
>
> The Windo's half.
But which half of Windows?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:12:56 -0700
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >> For those who do have the right credentials or who know the right
> > >> people, CEOs are starting to demand more loyalty out of them. The
> > >They won't get it until they start showing the same loyalty to
> > >their employees. So far, I haven't seen it.
> >
> > Mr. Kulkis now claims that employers are something other than
> > paragons of virtue, society's only legitimate rulers. Hmmm...
>
> I never claimed such a thing. The reason I go with Libertarian
> philosophy is because it holds that anyone is free to open a business,
> with little or no requirements for governmental approval (i.e. no
> requirement that a businessman go around being an ass-kisser to
> fiefdom-building bureaucrats) and SUCKY BUSINESSMEN WILL BE ALLOWED
> TO FAIL!
>
>
> >
> > >> However, you still won't be able to demand that your prospective
> > >> employer prove his "employee loyalty" by showing you an worker
> > >> history analogous to the job history that they require out of you.
> > >> Employers have all the power, and it's okay for them to fire an
> > >> employee every time a better one shows up.
> > >This is called "the marketplace"
> > >Everybody competes. The best win the most. The worst get the
> > >least. Everybody else is somewhere in the middle.
> >
> > However, "the marketplace" may reward the slickest fast talkers
> > or those who believe that nobody ever gets fired for buying the current
> > big computer monopoly (IBM, Microsoft, who's next?)
>
> IBM met their downfall eventually. Despite the fact that I vowed
> to aid in IBM's destruction in any legal way possible, I actually
> support them, now that they have a new CEO who has mandated that
> CUSTOMER NEEDS COME FIRST, and that IBM reps must do whatever is
> necessary to meet those needs, NOT (as in the past) to dictate
> various IBM pollutions for the sole purpose of locking out competitors.
>
> Microsoft is about to meet the same fate...except, Bill Gates
> refuses to see the light. He refuses to abide by consent decrees,
> and thus, the asshole will die in jail, where he belongs.
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this against the Liberatarian beleif? Wasn't
the market suppose bring Microsoft down instead of the government?
Personally, I am okay with the way things are. Free Enterprise needs to have
checks on it, hence one of the needs for government.
>
>
>
> > --
> > Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> > My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Best Regards,
Kevin Holmes
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:14:49 GMT
Tim "Rosey" PALMer and his five daughters posted...
> >> Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
> >> SVGA kernel.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Because they half to to make their graffics work.
Palmboy, if we wanted any shit out of you we'd squeeze your head.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OT: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:17:07 -0400
Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
> P.S. I can't agree that the Sherman was a good tank, the Russians
> called it something-coffin, or something like that. They weren't
> impressed at all. My nominee is the T34/85. Although, to be fair, a
> Sherman Jumbo with the higher velocity 76mm gun was nice, but they
> still needed to get close to kill a Tiger. I don't know how many were
> made, they were probably rare.
>
But given that the Germans ran out of gas, this was possible.
I won't claim that the Sherman was a great tank, but the
Americans had to worry more about ruggedness, as their
tanks were farther from home.
>
> -----= 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! =-----
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:18:27 GMT
> I alreaddy told you its a DOS box on LIE-nux.
You can't spell "already," and xterm doesn't have a command line.
It requires a shell for that.
C/
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:19:51 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > Gasoline burns way too easily, diesel is a lot harder to ignite, this means
> > > that taking a hit in say, a Panther with the Maybach diesel, or a T34 with
> > > it's diesel, was a lot less likely to result in a conflagration.
> > >
> >
> > Doh! I recall reading that, but I will not plead beer deprivation.
> >
>
> Um...Beer Overload?
>
No. I don't drink beer, so not having beer isn't deprivation. I had read
about that in regard to an Israeli tank that had the gas tank in front
of the crew area.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:21:21 -0400
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jim Richardson wrote:
> >> The Sherman was cheap, but that's about it, (oh, and the
> >> hydraulically stabilized turret was better, it could shoot
> >> reasonably accurately whilst moving.) But it had a myriad of
> >> flaws. It used radial aircraft engines, they used gasoline,
> >
> > The US was the world's largest oil producer at the time, so why is this
> > a problem?
>
> Gasoline engines tend not to be so efficient, and gas is only useful
> to a tank when it is in the tank's tank. So to speak. That makes you
> more dependant on your supply lines. Which is dangerous in war...
The Americans only ran out of gas once in WWII, and that was
when they outran their supply bases racing across France.
The Germans were the ones with fuel problems.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:22:19 -0400
Mats Olsson wrote in message <8m4aj9$6r8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:04:05 GMT, fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Chad Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Win2K can take the heat too. www.tpc.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_27.htm
>>
>>"We are particularly interested in Microsoft's COMWare architecture,
>>centered around COM+, because we believe it offers companies the
>>opportunity to build high throughput (100,000,000+ transaction per
>>day) web based commerce systems with extremely low cost per
>>transactions."
>
> For those that wonders where on the world this comes from, it's
>from http://www.objectwatch.com, ie the home page for ObjectWatch.
>The article of interrest is in issue_27, written by a clustering
>gury by the name of Greg Pfister, and he tries to explain why things
>are not as simple as they are.
>
> Of course, I'm sure that noone is really surprised that the article
>in question isn't discussed by Jen.
>
>>Strange to see Fungus posting references to a pro COM+ site.
>
> Well, in the real world, there are in fact some people who are
>interrested in how things really work, rather than spouting contentless
>nonsense on newsgroups all days. Thus, ObjectWatch may well be pro-COM+,
>but they obviously feel that their integrity is strengthened by people
>with different opinions.
ObjectWatch is Roger Sessions's web site. Roger was the SOM guy for IBM. SOM
was IBM's version of CORBA, so Roger represented IBM for CORBA.
CORBA, COM and EJB are all about component systems.
The key point is that all of the non-Windows 2000 benchmarks are legacy
systems, ie non-componentized systems that are very difficult to develop
with.
And none of the competiting marks involve the use of EJB or CORBA component
systems.
Roger says CORBA has been late in supporting transactions and has to
retrofit its system. EJB is more of a competition. It has the Java
"limitation," being primarily developed for Java.
Microsoft is updating its system with .NET, which is a component-capable,
multi-language, OS-distinct, middleware-based platform. The very thing that
Microsoft feared from the Netscape boys, ie an middleware-based "OS on an
OS." Luckily for Microsoft, Netscape had about as much talent as AOL.
2 + 2
>
> Weird, I know.
>
> /Mats
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:27:01 -0700
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
That was great. But why did you limit it to the windows and linux
newsgroups? Your message should have been spread into the realm of
Macintosh, BeOS, and Amiga as well.
Best Regards,
Kevin Holmes
"extrasolar"
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:28:31 -0400
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I guess he was actually referring to what's known as Church's
> > hypothesis.
>
> That's Curch's _Thesis_. And it's a rather wishy-washy statement.
> (Just WTF does "effectively computable" mean anyway?) Which is why it
> isn't a theorem, law, or even conjecture.
Doesn't "effectively computable" mean computable on a Turing Machine?
And Church's thesis is that the Turing computable functions are the
partial recursive functions.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does VB and SQL work under linux?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:31:56 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> YAWN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >hi all:
> >
> >i am thinking of putting Linux on my laptop (32MB RAM, P200, 2.0GB),
> >and i am wondering if i can run Visual Basics and SQL in Linux.
>
> All LIE-nux have is MY-SQL, which is like a MS-SQL Jr.
There's also Oracle, though most distros don't include it.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:32:47 -0400
Christopher Browne wrote in message ...
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John Hughes would say:
>>'Add to this the known fact that Microsoft itself doesn't run any of their
>>internal databases (hotmail, msn, etc) on Windows and we're left with
what?
>>Hot air about some new definition of "scalability"....'
>>
>>YOU state that Microsoft doesnt run ANY (please proove this) of their
>>INTERNAL DATABASES (and this). You know the difference between a database
>>and a web site? Right?
>
>The links are now gone, but Microsoft was evidently a significant
>sponsor of the effort to get SAP R/3 ported to the AS/400 platform.
>
>When Microsoft adopted R/3 as their ERP system, it certainly wouldn't
>do for them to need to install Unix, the platform they were claiming
>Windows NT would supplant, in order to run R/3.
SAP was one of the software companies that quickly become dominent of NT.
And part of the reason for NT's success.
Of course, SAP has always been looking over its shoulder as to whether,
really when, Microsoft will compete with its own ERP software.
Also, SAP has been in a tiff with Oracle and has been moving its customers
off Oracle's database.
Again, the size of this market is why Microsoft is preparing its
web/enterprise NET development platform.
Already, Microsoft has been standardizing software COM-based interfaces
throughout industry sectors. For all analytical software, its Plato, "OLAP
for the masses," cube technology is an example of a tech engine that lay the
groundwork for future products.
The actual size of the server software market would be hard to measure since
the advent of the web.
2 + 2
>About 4 years ago,
>this was quite the 'Laughingstock of the Industry' issue.
>
>I expect there's still a significant AS/400 presence at Microsoft,
>but that is something they'll doubtless continue to keep as private as
>they can.
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/msprobs.html>
>Rules of the Evil Overlord #84. "I will not have captives of one sex
>guarded by members of the opposite sex."
><http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:35:58 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >> ...and what programmms wuold they run? VI? HA-HA! You cant' run Ofice on VT-100
>terminnal, you know!
> >>
> >
> >And this is a disadvantage of VT-100's?
>
> Yes. People want to run Ofice, and they nead a GUI for it not a crappey VT-100.
>
And why do they want to run Office?
> >>
> >> > While for a small home or business environment some would say
> >> >"Big Deal".
> >>
> >> Deffinnately. Big deal.
> >>
> >> >This can be a very big deal in a larger environment were
> >> >the system administration needs to not only maintain the hardware
> >> >including the Uninteruptable Power Supply (UPS) or the backup
> >> >generator(s)).
> >>
> >> So give all the work to the usors.
> >>
> >
> >The users should not be doing system administration.
>
> and they shouldunt half to memmerize dum UNIX command's iether.
>
But there are no dumb UNIX commands.
> >>
> >> >Setting up NFS and NIS on both the server and clients and maintaining
> >> >backups across my planned 3 node network would have been an excersize
> >> >in frustration. (If thats bad for a 3 node, what about 40 node?)
> >>
> >> ...the problem migte be your using UNIX. UNIX is dum. You half to forst it too
>due everything.
> >>
> >
> >As opposed to Windows, where even forcing doesn't always help.
>
> In Windo's you don't half to force it works through the GUI.
Or fails to work through the GUI.
> UNIX just sais NO I DONT WANT TO DUE IT YOU HALF TO 'make' ME!
Get binary RPM's, they're already made.
> >> >
> >> > Your comments on this piece are welcome.
> >>
> >> I'll replay to this: Your idea is dum. A terminnall is dum because it cant have
>GUI.
> >
> >What if one doesn't need a GUI?
> >
>
> Then your probly a UNIX nerd.
>
Some people just run their computers as servers that don't require
a user interface at all.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "John Riddoch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 31 Jul 2000 13:49:20 GMT
In comp.sys.sun.misc Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An interesting - and very valid observation. Ironically, though, csh was
> the first shell I used, and I really don't like it now!
Ditto; csh is badly broken with some horrible syntax.
> FWIW, I use ksh...
zsh, myself. Worth trying, as it can do pretty much everything ksh can
and more besides. Main difference is that it doesn't share the history
between different instances of the same shell.
--
John Riddoch Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: (01224)262721
http://www.scms.rgu.ac.uk/staff/jr/
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't make
an exception for the last one.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:40:12 -0400
Mike Byrns wrote:
> "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:lqhh5.3763$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > You make your entire argument based on file name extension? Geez.
> > >
> > > NT can use .html files as well, you know. Check netcraft if you don't
> > > believe it.
> > >
> >
> > Lycos doesnt run WIndows 2000 because it cant run as .html.!! Oh the
> > evidence for the FUD isnt getting any better is it?
>
> What color is the sky in your world?
Mike, isn't he agreeing with you?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux runs 30% of the WWW.
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:48:55 -0500
Netcraft has its latest survey out (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/),
and in addition to the specs for Web servers they are now summarizing
the specs for OSes.
Surprisingly, Linux comes out on top, with 35.73% of all sites. By a
more conservative count introduced to filter out "placeholder" sites and
multiple URLs pointing to the same actual page, that figure is reduced
to a mere 29.99% of all hosts. That's still the biggest share, though
only by about 1.5%.
Apache is, of course, still gaining market share, though only by a small
increment this time around.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
