Linux-Advocacy Digest #222, Volume #28 Fri, 4 Aug 00 07:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Does Steve Ballmer post here? (Ray Chason)
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ???? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Nico Coetzee)
Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451761 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451760 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ???? (Tim Hanson)
Be OR Linux ("Chris Robertson")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: C# is a copy of java (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: C# is a copy of java (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Does Steve Ballmer post here?
Date: 4 Aug 2000 07:52:17 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12266.html
Quoth Mr. Ballmer:
"Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had [sic],
you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very,
very much about it. That is, it's free."
"Communism," the man says. And Timmy-boy calls Linux advocates "Commy."
Ballmer...
Palmer...
Coincidence? (ominous music)
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
People should respect the law, and the law should respect people.
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:20:43 GMT
In article <8mcnt6$ego$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your posting is a typical anti-Linux trap. You're not even telling us
you're real name. Why not, I wonder? Are you ashamed of what you
believe?
I use Deja News, but I use my real name, Pete Goodwin, and I'm a Windows
advocate.
> I have heard a lot of things about Linux.
Such as?
> I'm running happily W2K and now I'd like to know a valid
> reason for switching from Windows 2000 to Linux? Why?
> What advantage does the person gain running Linux?
> Can some of you qeniuses tell me ???
Why don't you tell us why you would want to switch from Windows 2000 to
Linux? What compelling reason might you have?
> Because Linux is a stable ?? Yes, I believe that, but so is W2K.
As others have pointed out, Windows 2000 is new, Linux is proven
technology.
> It costs less, yes it's true. But I'm only buying W2K once, and am all
> set for at least 5 years if not more.
Linux costs _nothing_. There's a big difference.
> Besided, time is money. I will lose more money by screwing around
> with a new system that I don't even know and that may not even support
> the hardware that Windwows does.
Linux doesn't support as much hardware as Windows 2000 does (I believe)
but then neither of them support as much as Windows 98 SE (or
Millenium). There are always exceptions, though.
> What software am I going to run on it ??? All the world class software
> is written for Windows. Hardly anything is ported to Linux.
>From what I've seen so far (and that's very little) what you say is
true.
> I'm a Windows developer, why should I spend 2 years of my life
learning
> how to program a new ssytem, that may eventually die anyway ???
You might say that about Microsoft Windows, actually. 8)
Who can say what OS will be dominant in the future. About all you can
say is this: expect change.
My interest in Linux is that Borland (hint: they're not Microsoft!) are
porting Delphi and C++ Builder to Linux. Can Microsoft say the same
about Visual C++ or Visual Basic?
> I can create a great application using Visual Basic or Visual C++ in a
> matter of few days. I'm not sure if that's posible in Linux. I haven't
> heard about any Visual development envir. for Linux ...
Oh boy this is a good one. Visual Basic I will say little about (since I
barely know it). Visual C++ I will say a bit more, since I've worked
with it long enough (from V1.5 to V6.0).
If you think you can create great applications with Visual C++ in a few
days, then I'd like some of whatever you're drinking. Visual C++ is ok
for writing simple apps but dreadful for GUI applications. Visual Basic
is far better, and Delphi is even better (IMHO).
> The only way they (companies) can defeat Microsoft is with the help of
> mom - Government. That's the only way they can do it, they can't
> succeed on the merit alone. Sun Microsystems goes even so far as to
get
> involved European Union. Now that's real abuse of government power.
> Here is the clear indication who is THE LOSER.
Microsoft have been found guilty of monopolising the market. They are
appealing this, and the outcome is by no means certain. Some of the
nefarious things they've done against competitors have been documented
- are you saying you're happy with this?
--
---
Pete
Coming soon: Kylix!
(I do not need the destruction of Microsoft to succeed).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 11:00:33 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Neil Bradley wrote:
> Nico Coetzee wrote:
> > This is why:
> > === script output ===
> > Mon Jul 10 13:42:15 SAST 2000
> > 1:42pm up 28 days, 1:23, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.14, 0.29
> > USER LINE LOGIN-TIME FROM
> > nicc tty2 Jun 12 14:13
> > nicc :0 Jul 5 15:07
> >
> > === /end ===
>
> Um... well, then by that logic I can conclude that one should run
> FreeBSD or Windows 2000, because:
>
> synthcom.com:
>
> [SYNTHCOM->neil: 1056] w
> 11:25PM up 52 days, 40 secs, 6 users, load averages: 1.98, 1.98, 1.99
> USER TTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE WHAT
> neil v0 - 11Jun00 51days -csh (csh)
> maxrpm d1 115200/26400 LAP 9:49PM - /usr/sbin/ppp
> -direct
> neil p0 archive Tue09AM 6 pine
> neil p1 archive Tue11PM - w
> neil p2 archive Tue11PM 8:39 -csh (csh)
>
> Uptime would be longer but I needed to compile filtration into the
> kernel.
>
> dynarec.com:
>
> [DYNAREC->neilb: 652] w
> 11:08PM up 84 days, 23:38, 3 users, load averages: 1.16, 1.03, 1.01
> USER TTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE WHAT
> neilb v0 - 22Jul00 1day -csh (csh)
> neilb v1 - 21May00 40days ./setiathome
> neilb p0 synthcom 11:08PM - w
>
> dynarec.com Would've been up longer, but I installed FreeBSD 4.0 which
> has only been out for slightly over 3 months. ;-)
>
> And my Windows 2000 box (from which I'm typing this message), as much as
> I hate to admit it, has an uptime of about 2915 hours (added system idle
> process and seti@home time added), which is about 121 days. The only
> time Windows 2000 has crashed on me was during a beta driver install in
> RC 1 last summer. I'm running the RTM now.
>
> FreeBSD has never crashed on me, and I've been running it since 1.1.5.
>
> -->Neil
My box is still up, now 53 days. I had to restart KDE about a week ago -
tried to play with a app I wrote which somehow bommed out.
Not bad for your W2K box...
Cheers.
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
"Well, it don't make the sun shine, but at least it don't deepen the shit."
-- Straiter Empy, in _Riddley_Walker_ by Russell Hoban
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 01:29:04 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:29:56 -0800, Steve Wilbur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The laws of physics (entropy) dictate there is no such thing as a free
>>lunch.
>
> Surely the 2nd law of thermodynamics only dictates that there is no such
> thing as a free lunch *in a closed system*?
Grief, such ignorance. As Uncle Al says so often on sci.physics with
respect to a free lunch:
1) You can't win.
2) you can only break even on a very cold day.
3) It never gets that cold.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451761
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:54:28 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> But Davie-kins, you've clipped all the context, so your point remain
1> unproven. ('
On the contrary, the context is your entertainment, which hasn't been
clipped, TInman.
2> It's funnier than a weak Philip Glass knock-knock joke told by a
2> kook-kook. ('
Incorrect, Tinman.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 03:55:02 -0500
Ray Chason wrote:
> Ballmer...
> Palmer...
>
> Coincidence? (ominous music)
Side note: If you haven't seen the Gates interview over at Red Herring, rush
over and check it out now.
http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue82/mag-gates-82-home.html
---8<-------
Pontin: Mr. Gates, governments are embracing Linux.
Gates: What does that mean?
Pontin: It means that Chinese and France have accepted Linux as a possible
server --
Gates: -- Oh! A "possible server"! --
Pontin: -- and some of their agencies have decided to support the operating
system.
Gates: I don't know what you mean by "support." Our fastest-growing server
business is in China -- by far. Our biggest projects by far --
Pontin: I think I took away from the announcement the idea that the Chinese
really like Linux.
Gates: What the heck are you talking about?
---8<-------
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451760
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:55:38 GMT
Eric Bennett writes:
>> Once again he ignores all the unresolved issues,
> How ironic.
On what basis do you make that claim, Eric?
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:06:22 GMT
Ah. Looks to me like a bunch of rhetorical questions intended to flame
rather than seek information. But then again, this is c.o.l.a.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have heard a lot of things about Linux.
>
> I'm running happily W2K and now I'd like to know a valid
> reason for switching from Windows 2000 to Linux? Why?
> What advantage does the person gain running Linux?
> Can some of you qeniuses tell me ???
>
> Because Linux is a stable ?? Yes, I believe that, but so is W2K.
>
> It costs less, yes it's true. But I'm only buying W2K once, and am all
> set for at least 5 years if not more.
> Besided, time is money. I will lose more money by screwing around
> with a new system that I don't even know and that may not even support
> the hardware that Windwows does.
>
> What software am I going to run on it ??? All the world class software
> is written for Windows. Hardly anything is ported to Linux.
>
> I'm a Windows developer, why should I spend 2 years of my life learning
> how to program a new ssytem, that may eventually die anyway ???
>
> I can create a great application using Visual Basic or Visual C++ in a
> matter of few days. I'm not sure if that's posible in Linux. I haven't
> heard about any Visual development envir. for Linux ...
>
> The only way they (companies) can defeat Microsoft is with the help of
> mom - Government. That's the only way they can do it, they can't
> succeed on the merit alone. Sun Microsystems goes even so far as to get
> involved European Union. Now that's real abuse of government power.
> Here is the clear indication who is THE LOSER.
>
> I can't wait to see your replies
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher von Braun
------------------------------
From: "Chris Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Be OR Linux
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:34:23 GMT
I know this is going to sound like a stupid post. Considering I am posting
to a Linux Newsgroup. However, I have reached my absolute limit with
windows, It sucks entirely. I have SuSE Linux 6.4. Anyway, the point of
this message is to ask: BeOS or Linux? I have both ready to install.
However, I am going to destroy Windows entirely either way this works. Let
me put it this way: If EVERY Program EVER made was available for EVERY
Operating system, I'd Think very hard between Linux and BeOS. Anyway, Let
me know what you people think.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
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: 4 Aug 2000 09:02:27 GMT
In article <8marb3$2g98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up. If Compaq can indeed pull this off (I
> have my doubts from a company who *still* sticks to "bios on the
> drive" bullshit) they will actually become competative in the Big
> Unix Market (TM).
Well, the part that is doing that is the part that used to be DEC, and
they could produce quite reasonable hardware. Anyone using a Unix
should have a soft spot for DEC, for where would we be without the PDPs?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 4 Aug 2000 09:09:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>> parallelizing many applications is hard, especially with Real World
>> data, due to your communications and synchronization overhead.
>
> Hence archuitectures like the SGI Origin series (and others as well,
> it's just that there's SGI machines where I work).
I use Origins, and I'm not that impressed. Of course, I'm doing
god-awfully large discrete-event network simulations and analysis and
that is a frightfully difficult problem to parallelize. (Isn't it
annoying when you have to put in a special request so that you can
reserve more than 4GB of system memory for your app?) At least I'm
not I/O bound...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 4 Aug 2000 08:48:29 GMT
In article <O4bh#uW$$GA.56@cpmsnbbsa07>, kevhsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So a Unix box can transfer data almost twice as fast as DDR RAM?
Sure. Run each RAM bank asynchronously to the others, and use static
RAM for each. Both expensive solutions, but if you need that raw
speed then nothing else will do.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: 4 Aug 2000 08:31:18 GMT
In article <8ma0iu$f1o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In otherwords they have memory consumption and performance reducing
> overhead at runtime.
Of course. Deallocation isn't free anywhere! But it is cheaper, in
terms of programmer effort, to have a runtime system that looks after
that stuff than to do it all by hand.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 4 Aug 2000 09:15:48 GMT
In article <uU84VwW$$GA.56@cpmsnbbsa07>, kevhsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Newsgroups have hit a new low.
Imminent death of USENET predicted. MPEG at 11.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: 4 Aug 2000 08:44:31 GMT
In article <8md9ue$jpk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (For example, there's no need to bother with converting ascii chars
> to their ordinal values an back again, since they *are* numbers anyway
> in the first place "ord()" and "chr()" are pointless functions in
> Pascal that have no reason to exist other than to force programmers to
> have to write more verbiage.)
OTOH, C never distinguished properly between bytes and characters, and
this is a bit of a problem when trying to work with character systems
that require more than 256 glyphs. (Sure, there's a whole new bunch
of APIs to do it, and there'll be another load when 65536 different
chars is no longer felt to be enough... Aaargh!) Whereas Pascal
should be[*] able to take all that stuff in its stride as it doesn't
expose the machine interpretation of characters in the first place.
Donal.
[* No idea if it does though; I've not worked with Pascal for more
than five years. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
