Linux-Advocacy Digest #479, Volume #28 Fri, 18 Aug 00 13:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Article: Why linux is here to stay (John Sanders)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Kim A. Sommer)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous (John
Sanders)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Drestin Black")
Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE (mark)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Aug 2000 10:12:18 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8nieb1$pgk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Wrong. Having two different ways of doing things does not
> > qualify as "fragmented" except to people who are very
> > compulsive and controlling.
>
> Having two ways of, say, drawing your title bar captions is not
> fragmentation. Having two ways of configuring your system isn't really
> fragmentation either (though it's getting closer).
Oh? So Microsoft Windows is fragmented as well? (I can think of many
more than one way to draw a title bar)
> Having two ways of doing something like drag-n-drop or cut-and-paste
> certainly does qualify as fragmented. An application probably could be
> written to support both, but generally only one or the other is supported.
> That makes interoperatbility impossible, and is the definition of
> fragmentation.
Cut-and-paste works between the systems (at least on my box) and
drag-n-drop works in the most common situations; sure, you can't drag
a bonobo component onto Kword -- but how useful is that really?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: Why linux is here to stay
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:13:32 -0500
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >They should pull the Windows and Mac's out. They serve no purpose
> >> >other than to befuddle the underclassemen with stupid ideas.
> >> And what, in particular, might those be?
> >That "point & click" has anything to do with "computer engineering"
> >and/or "computer science"
>
> Who cares?
>
Me. Just think of the time wasted developing this lame interface. And
the greater time lost in using it.
> There's a big market for point-and-click, and someone who
> professes to believe in capitalism ought to appreciate trying to satisfy
> that market.
Yes. My Linux system is not market driven, is easier/faster to use and
I don't have to be satisfied with the limits of what the market
provides.
> Furthermore, this argument would make KDE and Gnome into great evils.
Ahh. You DO understand.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:18:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>If for some reason you find that slrn doesn't quite fit,
>you might consider trying out tin ... I've used it for
>years, and until I found out that XNews was ported
>to Win32, I found it to be quite the little client.
Actually I used to use tin quite a bit. I tried it out
yesterday (in my experiments) and decided I wanted
something a little different. That's kind of how I
stumbled across slrn. So far I really like it, and it
fits my style pretty well.
>For some odd reason, it would die off, munge its
>newsrc file, and crash subsequently upon launch,
>until you deleted the newsrc file, retrieved all
>of the newsgroups again (which is painful over a
>modem connection), and re-saved it again, hoping
>that another application fault wouldn't cause you
>to repeat the same steps ad nauseum. :-P
That sounds incredibly painful. Especially considering
that I went through a couple of those episodes yesterday
when I was playing, er working on finding a good
newsreader. I tried out three or four, and each one
(except for tin and slrn) had to download it's own copy of
the newsgroups. Arg, that was painful.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 13:29:47 -0300
Craig Kelley escribió:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In your face, Windows advocates! Linux fragmentation my butt!
> > >
> > > I think its healthy, regardless of all the doom mongers' whining. I'm
> > > no KDE fan myself, but I know a lot of Windows users who may not have
> > > switched had it not been for it. Maybe the extra pressure from this
> > > push toward GNOME will prod KDE into dumping that ridiculous licensing /
> > > kickback scheme.
> >
> > I don't know about you, but if I'd just spent the last what, 2-3 years
> > working my ass off on developing something like KDE and then the majority of
> > the Linux/unix community decides to go with a competing effort, I'd be
> > rather pissed that I had wasted the last 3 years of my life doing virtually
> > nothing.
> >
> > That can't be good for the morale of open source developers.
>
> The KDE folks choose to use a commercial library, which makes
> distributing KDE at least somewhat problematic. Although, the 2.x Qt
> license is much more friendly, it still rasies some issues about
> linking with GPL software and developing "commercial" (whatever that
> is) software with it.
>
> To sumamrize: You cannot legally distribute KDE binaries linked
> against Qt binaries without providing for a GPL'd version of the Qt
> binaries (which is impossible). You can understand why the legal
> departments of some large corporations might be wary.
You forgot to qualify that with "a bunch of people, none of which
has any legal training whatsoever says that..."
I have never seen any lawyer say anything like it, and I have
seen them say the exact opposite.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim A. Sommer)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 18 Aug 2000 11:23:20 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
[snip]
>> You assume you can speak for consumers. You cannot. We speak via our
>> legal representatives - the DOJ. The market is distorted by monopoly
>> power thus the market does not speak for consumers - it is manipulated
>> and distorted so badly that it needs to be fixed by splitting MS.
>
>It's too bad it will never happen. Free trade always prevails.
Non sequitor. MS's monopoly and illegal maintenance of the same are not
free trade. MS has gone to great lengths to not have to participate in
free trade on the desktop OS market.
Kim Sommer
--
=======
Kim A. Sommer
Humans do it Better! The Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:27:54 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip]
Not suprisingly, those points that cannot be rebutted were snipped. I'll
declare victory on those. :-) Not trying to be an ass but there were alot
of advantages there that were not answered...
> > In many cases programmers forgo implementing memory protection between
> > threads but that's not the fault of the OS. It's the fault of the
> > programmer. It's there if you want to take advantage of it.
>
> Yes, but we have a choice under Linux of whether we want to
> significantly add to our program's bulk, or to just use the one-line
> fork() call.
CreateThread is a one line call. Once you wrap the VirtualProtect et. al.
functions in accessor functions they are one line calls. It's personal
choice. I find the advantages of easy interthread local procedure calls,
thread pooling and functional encapsulation to result in much less bloated
code. I also like using structured exception handling to catch unhandled
thread exceptions in a manager thread instead of in the OS. I guess it's
really all in how you learned it. I've been a Win32 programmer since the
first beta SDK shipped on a single 1.2MB (5 1/4 inch remember those :-)
floppy. Before that I did <gasp> DOS and Windows API (as it was called
then). I've had threads as long as I've had pre-emptive multitasking. It's
just a natural choice for me.
> Forking is fairly scalable, but not as scalable as
> threads in most situations.
I'll say. Windows thread stacks exist in the apps virtual address space so
you can have over 2000 per app at the default stack size. You should never
need to though. Optimal design on Windows warrants optimized code in a pool
of worker threads equal in number to the number of CPUs on the server. Plus
whatever manager or UI threads you might need. Since I can accept and
schedule multiple incoming TCP/IP connections on a single thread and
dispatch them to a worker thread as the queue allows, I can clear
connections faster than with the overhead of the standard UNIX way of
forking for every connection. That's OK for the first couple dozen
connections but then you start really using the system resources up after
that. My connections might wait slightly longer to be serviced but they get
serviced so much faster that Windows tends to come out ahead. For lengthy
streams processes like FTP I don't block in the thread since Windows allows
me to "connect" a file handle to a pipe and forget about it unless it's done
or there's an exception. This makes implementing FTP or HTTP servers that
support command pipelining *so* simple. :-)
> The problem is, 90% of the time (my time,
> anyway) you don't care if the process is extremely scalable and you
> can ditch a bunch of complexity by using processes instead.
I always care about scalability. I write commercial software. :-)
> > > Unix servers tend to have more memory protection ('cos
> > > it is much cheaper to use processes, and they offer much more
> > > isolation) so the problem bites far less.
> >
> > How much cheaper? Both OSs do essentially the same things when creating
> > processes. I'd be interested to learn just how many processor cycles it
> > takes each to create a simple "Hello, world." process. I'll wager that
it
> > is cheaper to create a thread on Windows than it is to create a process
on
> > UNIX. Since Windows threads CAN offer a similar degree of memory
protection
> > it would seem the more efficient route.
>
> Historically (ie, Linux 2.0 vs NT 4) Linux has been much quicker at
> context switches and process creations.
I'd be interested in seeing those test results and even more interested in
reviewing the test methodology.
> I haven't seen any benchmarks
> for 2000 vs. 2.4, but I would assume it's about the same.
TPC-C not good enough? :-)
> NT gains
> ground by having massivly multi-threaded systems, whereas Linux tends
> to choke up in this department because legacy apps don't use threads
> like NT's do.
NT actually loses ground in "massively" multi-threaded situations. I don't
think NT thread context switching is as big a deal as you think but it's
still essentially wasted cycles. The scalability rule-of-thumbs among
Windows server programmers is asynch IO, worker threads = CPUs, multiple
connections per pipeline and manager handles in pipe timeouts and
exceptions. In pipe state is generally handled internally by the thread in
TLS. Processes (with threads like this inside) are ganged together into a
job object in the cluster and share only highlevel (startup/shutdown,
add/remove queue item and syncronization) messages via message queue.
> A Linux process actually is just a form of a thread; it takes almost
> no time to create (copy-on-write memory helping out a lot). See the
> clone(2) man pages for more information.
NT processes are really just a form of a thread with some extra
recordkeeping data maintained by the OS. You might note that your clone
threads offer none of the memory protection that the original topic crowed
about. From the man page you referenced:
===== start clone(2) man page =====
__clone creates a new process like fork(2) does. Unlike fork(2), __clone
allows the child process to share parts of its execution context with its
parent process, such as the memory space, the table of file descriptors, and
the table of signal handlers. The main use of __clone is to implement
threads: multiple threads of control in a program that run concurrently in a
shared memory space.
===== stop clone(2) man page =====
> The current big idea in the threading wars is to have a good mix
> between kernel and userland threads within a process (ala Solaris).
> Time will tell what's best under certain situations.
NT does that when you use asynch IO, userland threads are the pipelines and
manager.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:21:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 13:34:29 GMT, Nathaniel Jay Lee
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Netscape released all of the code, but it was quickly decided that they
>>would scrap all of the code that was given to them, and start from scratch
>>because the original code was such a 'mess'.
>
>They didn't release some things (e.g. the JVM). And "quickly" was
>actually about a year I think.
Well, considering how long Mozilla is taking, that sounds
pretty 'quickly' to me :-).
And I had forgotten about that licensing mess that caused
some parts of it to not be released. It's been a while
since I thought about it actually, but I know Netscape
released all of the code 'that was thiers'. The bits they
didn't directly own they didn't. Sorry, I was a little
mixed up in my first response.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:54:49 -0500
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You assume you can speak for consumers. You cannot. We speak via our
legal
> representatives - the DOJ.
> The market is distorted by monopoly power thus the market does not speak
for
> consumers - it is manipulated and distorted so badly that it needs to be
fixed
> by splitting MS.
Sorry, but the DOJ is not a representative for the consumer. Nobody on the
DOJ staff was elected, nor do they solicit the opinion of consumers or
anyone else besides themselves. The DOJ does what it wants and answers only
to the supreme court.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:43:43 GMT
In article <xFdn5.6562$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You assume you can speak for consumers. You cannot. We speak via our
> legal
> > representatives - the DOJ.
> > The market is distorted by monopoly power thus the market does not
> > speak
> for
> > consumers - it is manipulated and distorted so badly that it needs to
> > be
> fixed
> > by splitting MS.
>
> Sorry, but the DOJ is not a representative for the consumer. Nobody on
> the
> DOJ staff was elected, nor do they solicit the opinion of consumers or
> anyone else besides themselves. The DOJ does what it wants and answers
> only
> to the supreme court.
>
Wrong -- in almost every respect.
First, the DOJ also answers to the President.
Second, the DOJ is concerned about the opinion of users because if
voters don't like what they're doing, they can vote the Administration
out of office.
Third, even if the public doesn't vote directly on the DOJ officials,
it's irrelevant. The public doesn't directly elect the President,
either. It's a representative democracy.
Finally, even if you persist in your belief that the public has no say
in what the DOJ does, that doesn't preclude the DOJ representing the
public.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:03:49 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8njkqu$7mp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote in
> <8nij11$1j1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >In article <yJ2n5.6518$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 8<SNIP>8
>
> >>That can't be good for the morale of open source developers.
> >
> >This is a vicious lie that Funkenbusch is spreading, as part
> >of his consistent propaganda campaign against Linux, Open
> >Source, etc., and in favor of Microsoft. Check his previous
> >posts in DejaNews (when the Power Search starts working
> >again). Everything he posts reads like it comes straight
> >from Microsoft.
>
> The thing is, folks, I just cannot bring myself to
> *PLOINK!* Mark, because his blinding idiocy is just
> too damn funny to read.
Haha.. I killfiled him ages ago, so I don't see his stupid responses, such
as this one.
Why is it stupid? Because he's calling my opinion a lie. An opinion cannot
be a lie.
I'm not sure when he'll figure out that everyone is entitled to their
opinion, but until he does.. he'll remain in my killfile.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:30:40 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Which brings us to about where we are now. So I again ask: next?
I would be interested in seeing you support your claim that explorer is
a window manager.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:07:03 -0500
"Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8njb1b$lpu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You have kinda backwards logic in there...
Why?
> If another open source project is chosen over mine, I can say that
> my work secured a lower bound for the quality of these two or more
> projects. An Open source is all about good software/software that
> doesn't suck.
But that's just it. You must think the competitors software sucks more than
yours does, or you would have abandoned the work on your project already.
So, you end up with corporations controlling the path of the common linux
desktop environment, rather than end users.
> And at the end of the day, I can still choose either desktop, and still
> work on my project if I think it's so damn great, or join the other
> project, since I picked up a lot of knowledge during my development.
Not if the applications all begin to support Gnome and only Gnome.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:53:50 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> >
> > > Yes, but we have a choice under Linux of whether we want to
> > > significantly add to our program's bulk, or to just use the one-line
> > > fork() call. Forking is fairly scalable, but not as scalable as
> > > threads in most situations. The problem is, 90% of the time (my time,
> > > anyway) you don't care if the process is extremely scalable and you
> > > can ditch a bunch of complexity by using processes instead.
> >
> > And if using fork() ends up consuming too many resources, you can just
fork
> > out for a more powerful platform! <g> Sorry, just couldn't resist.
>
> Yep, Linux does provide a good path to powerful OSes like AIX.
Would this be the same AIX that I've got on my WebSphere farm? The same one
that performs 90% slower than the single CPU Windows 2000 development box?
The same AIX that I've had IBM on site TWICE in the last month to fix so it
retains eCommerce session data when OSE protocol app server load balancing
is enabled? AIX may be powerful but it sure doesn't look like it on MY
RS/6000 rack...
BTW, you wouldn't have any clue as to what's wrong with it would you? ;-)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:09:30 -0500
"Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8njbps$mpp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Please define "two ways of doing something".
> If it's the code in the background that is different, I as a user don't
> care, and thus do not experience fragmentation.
In order for DnD and CnP to work between two applications, both have to
support the same mechanism. Since there is no standard way to do this in
Linux, you need to either have two apps agree on a standard format, or use
an environment API that does it. If two apps support different environment
API's, then they don't cooperate.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:11:42 -0500
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I don't know about you, but if I'd just spent the last what, 2-3 years
> > working my ass off on developing something like KDE and then the
majority of
> > the Linux/unix community decides to go with a competing effort, I'd be
> > rather pissed that I had wasted the last 3 years of my life doing
virtually
> > nothing.
> >
> > That can't be good for the morale of open source developers.
>
> Let me tell you, if you check the CVS ML, patches are flying around
> furiously
> while we get ready to launch 2.0 and show them what a bad choice they
> did ;-)
Great :) Keep up the good work. But when it comes down to it, someone has
to lose this battle eventually. And one side will have to admit defeat.
The war may not yet be over, but it will be someday.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: 18 Aug 2000 12:00:13 -0500
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Long ago, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered the
following:
> >I state for the record and without any qualification that I do not have
ANY
> >financial motives for supporting Microsoft.
> [snip]
> >My company and I uses and resells some MS products and we profit from
doing
> >this. THAT is how I profit from "MS doing well."
>
> Find the contradiction?
it's not the same as saying I'm paid by MS - sheesh, are you that
uneducated?
I also sell products from other people, some who are MS competitors, I
promote their warez too. You guys are really desperate to discredit anything
MS aren't you? Why do you worry so much? what are you so afraid of?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 07:43:41 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Perry Pip wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:34:34 -0400,
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The MCSE approach to garbage collection is to reboot. I would expect a
>>> Sanitary Engineer have more to discuss about garbage collection than a
>>> Mircosoft Engineer.
>>
>>Sadly, this is true.
>>
>
>Why sadly?? The only people affected by the incompetence of MCSE's are
>the idiots who hire them.
No no no - absolutely not true. Work for a large organisation, as I do,
then you spend large amounts of time trying to keep MSCEs off your PC to
stop them breaking things any further than the problems Bill Gates built
in for you in the first place.
I have absolutely no say whatsoever in who the IS directorate hire.
I suffer badly from any incompetents amongst their number.
Okay, I know that wasn't your main point, but it just struck a nerve.
It's like the claim the Microsoft marketing people in this group make
from time to time that I should 'upgrade' 'cos the newest OS from their
paymasters solves problems x,y,z. I have no control at all over the
OS version I have to use as well.
Most people I know at work would happily put an axe through their PCs,
people now talk wistfully about how reliable All-in-one was, how the
mail always got through, how it never crashed etc., etc.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 07:36:56 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Damien wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:43:44 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:31:32 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>| wrote:
>|
>| >But part of the "code bloat" of X is that it is network transparent, which
>| >makes it somewhat overdesigned for a standalone PC.
>|
>| In a business environment, few PC's are "standalone" any more. Even in
>| the home, networking is becoming standard. And in a networked
>| envoironment, this "bloat" is very useful.
>
>Many would chalk up that bloat as a case of overengineering, but
>the truth is that X was built to last. The ratio of networked to
>non-networked computers is growing fast and will approach 1 in the
>very near future. How will other systems handle this? Rather poorly
>if VNC and PC-anywhere are any indication. X is was built for this
>from the ground up.
Like a lot of techies, I've had a home network for several years. I had
a sound-broadcast network at home for many years before that. I find that
the populous at large are generally doing the (technical) things I was
doing between 5 and 15 years later.
X's networking affinity has served me well and will continue to serve
everyone well; far better than having displays chained to a local device,
which seems a rather dated approach to me.
No doubt the Microsoft legacy paradigms will die with their OSs, including
this concept of being nailed to your local devices by bum OS design.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
