Linux-Advocacy Digest #379, Volume #28 Sun, 13 Aug 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft MCSE ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Jack Troughton)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("Shocktrooper")
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! (Cihl)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (Gary Hallock)
Re: I do not understand the sudden issue of "the GUI in the Linux kernel" bit...
(was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Microsoft MCSE (Pan)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (Pan)
news article (David Punsalan)
Re: art is a modern invention (Richard)
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:13:58 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8n6k09$boi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:WNrl5.5218$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Do you know what an MCSE is? An MCSE has nothing to do with software
> > development.
>
> Those were not software devlopment issues, they were general CS issues.
> Anyone who claimed to be a computer professional, more so when they want
to
> be called an Engineer should have a firm grasp of those issues.
Give me a break. There is no reason for a systems engineer (which is a
person that maintains hardware. Be it Microsoft, IBM, or others) to know
anything about garbage collection or re-entrant code or software exclusive
locks or page replacement algorithms.
IBM created the title Systems Engineer. And you don't need to know any of
those criteria to be one.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 20:56:41 GMT
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 02:30:08, "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS/PL wrote:
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:3995d18f$3$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > >
>> > > >> Yes Perry Mason. You do not understand - we are not in a court
>room.
>> > > >> The burden of proof lies with the vendor. In the case of MS they
>are
>> > not
>> > > >lying
>> > > >> about Windows2000 - They admited W2K DC is more stable than the PC
>OSs
>> > you
>> > > >> advocate.
>> > >
>> > > >Can you post a link, or a scan where MS specifically says we are
>selling
>> > > >Datacenter Server because our Advanced Server isn't reliable enough.
>I'm
>> > > >nearly through wasting time on you
>> > >
>> > > Yes. Go. You have told us nothing worth knowing --
>> >
>> > I do realize that when reality doesn't match your accepted myths, it is
>very
>> > hard to take, your a living example of that.
>> >
>> > >The fact is there are OS2
>> > > and Unix servers out there that have been running longer then this M$
>> > stuff
>> > > have been available as an idea. When it has that degree of proven
>> > > reliability, someone might notice.
>> >
>> > Apache AND Microsoft have vitually taken over as webservers since 1996
>with
>> > 62% and 20% respectively.
>> >
>> > > I implore you to clue in on the fact
>> > > >that it's just another offering, it isn't making up for anything.
>It's
>> > just
>> > > >an OS for HUGE networks. Advanced Server is still as rock solid as
>ever.
>> > The
>> > > >average person cannott even lay hands on it (Datacenter Server)
>without
>> > > >purchasing the matching hardware.
>> > >
>> > > You have no idea how companies with mission critical systems conduct
>their
>> > > work. Shutup while you're ahead.
>> >
>> > I forgot to include this link in the first reply:
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/platform/overview/default.asp
>> >
>> > I'm still waiting for Joseph to back up his foolish claim that by
>> > introducing Datacenter Server, MS is somehow "admitting" any smaller
>> > packages of server are unreliable.
>>
>> The existance of Datacenter Server *IS* the proof, moron.
>
>No, it isn't.
>
>> There would be no need for "Datacenter Server" if the other products
>> were reliable.
>
>There would be no need for Datacenter server if the other products supported
>32 processor machines with 64gb of ram, instead of (up to) 8 processors for
>Advanced Server and 8gb of ram. It has nothing to do with reliability, it
>has everything to do with hardware scale.
That's interesting, considering that IBM's entry in the PC-based
server arena (Warp Server for eBusiness) scales up to those numbers
and beyond... and it has been out for over a year.
You mean that Datacenter has not yet caught up to an IBM product that
is a year old? Yeah, way ahead of the curve, those MS guys...
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 21:11:28 GMT
"Jack Troughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> There would be no need for "Datacenter Server" if the other products
> >> were reliable.
> >
> >There would be no need for Datacenter server if the other products supported
> >32 processor machines with 64gb of ram, instead of (up to) 8 processors for
> >Advanced Server and 8gb of ram. It has nothing to do with reliability, it
> >has everything to do with hardware scale.
>
> That's interesting, considering that IBM's entry in the PC-based
> server arena (Warp Server for eBusiness) scales up to those numbers
> and beyond... and it has been out for over a year.
>
> You mean that Datacenter has not yet caught up to an IBM product that
> is a year old? Yeah, way ahead of the curve, those MS guys...
And of course this "warp server for eBusiness" also handles near Unix performance for
3D applications for CaD/CaM?
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 21:15:15 GMT
Robert Moir wrote:
>
> "Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Hey Aaron, have you ever noticed how people always start attacking
> > others personally when they can't win an argument? They know it's
> > true, so they just start bitching and whining about the one who wrote
> > it.
> >
> > Looks like you really won the argument, Aaron.
>
> Have you noticed how Aaron starts the personal attacks and then hides behind
> people like you?
I must have missed a post. Care to clarify this?
And what is "people like you" supposed to mean anyway?
--
You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
Do you wish to restart your computer now?
[YES] [NO]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:31:06 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>
> Well, I haven't looked at pthreads in quite a while. It used to be a
> library that you could link with to give you thread support, at the cost of
> controlling your own scheduling.
Are you talking about pthreads or the Linux implementation of pthreads?
pthreads has never required you to do your own scheduling. There is a subset
of POSIX threads that can be implemented in user space, but this is not the
same as doing you own scheduling.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I do not understand the sudden issue of "the GUI in the Linux kernel"
bit... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:45:07 +1000
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Stephen S. Edwards II would
say:
> >I don't understand... what's the big deal here? So some people
> >want the X protocol in kernel address space... so what? How can
> >that possibly affect you, and how can they possibly sit there in
> >your office, hold a gun to your head, and say "use this, dammit!"?
> >
> >If Linux gets munged to the point where you no longer like it,
> >and you don't want to, or cannot make the changes you want to
> >the base system, then simply leave it for something else. After
> >all, isn't another touted strength of UNIX environments the
> >interoperability factor? Go to Free/Open/NetBSD, or even a
> >commercial UNIX variant, if you have the means.
>
> Of course, X11 is _NOT_ going to go into the Linux kernel, because:
> a) The people working on the Linux kernel don't want it there;
> b) The people that are working on XFree86 are not "Linux folk."
> A number of them are BSD folk, and changing XFree86 so much
> as would be required to integrate it into the kernel would be
> impractical.
>
> In effect, the "Let's put the GUI into the kernel!" idea is a fool's
> errand, generally proposed by people that have done no development work
> on either kernel or GUI.
>
> From a practical standpoint, these development teams are, to some
> degree, meritocracies. Nobody will take you seriously until you
> actually contribute substantial useful code.
>
> _THAT_ is the reason why nothing so stupid as trying to integrate
> GUI and kernel together is likely to happen.
I think it would be best if everyone describes exactly what they mean and
understand by "the GUI integrated into the kernel", with respect to both
potential Linux development and current NT status......
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:37:00 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From what I've seen of our MCSE's, the primary requirement is knowing
which slot to stuff a cdrom into, how to use a mouse, and how to reboot
a machine.
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8n6k09$boi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:WNrl5.5218$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Do you know what an MCSE is? An MCSE has nothing to do with software
> > > development.
> >
> > Those were not software devlopment issues, they were general CS issues.
> > Anyone who claimed to be a computer professional, more so when they want
> to
> > be called an Engineer should have a firm grasp of those issues.
>
> Give me a break. There is no reason for a systems engineer (which is a
> person that maintains hardware. Be it Microsoft, IBM, or others) to know
> anything about garbage collection or re-entrant code or software exclusive
> locks or page replacement algorithms.
>
> IBM created the title Systems Engineer. And you don't need to know any of
> those criteria to be one.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:42:48 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Lorton wrote:
> An undemonstratable distinction.
>
> > FWIW, I see libertarianism as not much more than idealistic world view
> > dreamed up by people who are reaping the fruits of a mixed economy but
> > who don't like paying taxes and who have forgotten how much of their tax
> > money has actually gone to creating an infrastructure that makes
> > possible an environment of economic prosperity through social and
> > political stablity.
>
> I hear that a lot, but I don't see any proof.
That's because you can't see the forest through the trees.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: David Punsalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: news article
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:35:43 -0500
Hi,
I am a hobbyist Linux user. And although I enjoy using Linux, I often
wonder about its longevity.
I just read a news article about Linux that states that according to Bug
Traq, Linux is "one of the worst OSs" in history. This is the url:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/FredMoody/moody.html
My question is this:
Is this so-called "BugTraq" a good measure of an OS's quality? And if so
- what does the Linux community have to say about this?
Thanks,
David
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: art is a modern invention
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 21:57:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Which explains why the Greeks never did any art or science and why
> philosophy
> > was only invented a mere hundred years ago. Plato and Aristoteles are
> fictions.
>
> I hope that you re not foolish enough to believe that.
>
> > Beware idiots proclaiming their own self-importance
>
> Thanks for the warning about you, but we have already guessed that to be the
> case.
I don't even need to follow up on the newsgroup since you've done my job
for me (for the second time I believe). But since indications are that you
aren't a complete moron, do you realize that you've managed to damn yourself?
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 21:58:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > http://www.smalltalk.org/#AlanKayRevolution
>
> Is there a transcript of the speech available?
Not that I know of. Even worse, it's RealAudio.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
