Linux-Advocacy Digest #484, Volume #28 Fri, 18 Aug 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux Presidential Candidates? (Pan)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
A highly Un-Scientific Research! ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Switch to NT? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Stephen S. Edwards II)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: 18 Aug 2000 19:13:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:8njsas$43h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>My point was that people who post false accusations and continue to do
>>so for purely inflammatory reasons don't warrant getting bent about.
>>I'd have made fun of them and left it at that. Any more static from
>>them and they get plonked.
I agree with Mike's thinking. Who cares what
some flunkie on the other side of the nation,
or world thinks?
>One point of contention is that this particular person
>goes out of his/her/it's way to be unplonkable. (It's
>tough to plonk someone when they go so far out of thier
>way to have a new identity as often as possible.)
Forging one's headers isn't so difficult though.
That's why filters should be configured to block
posts from a particular NNTP posting _host_, and
not just the From: line in the header.
Now it's true that some readers won't do this,
so if that's the case, then it's best to just
ignore people you don't wish to converse with.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:07:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>> Freedom of choice is what GNU/Linux/OSS is all about.
>
> Yup, and competition _always_ drives innovation. That's it, bottom
> line.
Thanks, I was waiting for somebody to make that point.
To the extent that there is a 'war' between gnome and kde,
there will be no real losers. The freedom of the software
ensures that the best ideas (and likely at least some code)
from one product will migrate to the other. Vigorous
competition and free information flow virtually guarantee
that the winner will be the finest software component platform
ever seen.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
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 19:20:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8njvlo$q8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>8<SNIP>8
>
>>> Yep, Linux does provide a good path to powerful OSes like AIX.
>>
>>Actually, I was thinking along the lines of going to a more powerful
>>equipment on the same family of hardware if that cannot help you can
>>move from a microcomputer running Linux to a minicomputer running Linux
>>or even to a mainframe running Linux. That is something that cannot be
>>done with Windows NT. My posting was a little joke that was also
>>intended to highlight that major difference.
>
>What sort of proof do you have that WindowsNT could
>not be adapted to run on many different classes of
>hardware?
>
>No, _WE_ can't do it, because it's closed source,
>but that doesn't mean that it empirically cannot
>be done.
I keep wondering about this line of reasoning. Linux
'DOES' run on all the classes of hardware mentioned,
Windows NT, at the moment, 'DOES NOT' run on all the
classes of hardware mentioned. We (the Linux advocates)
see that as a situation of 'what can we reasonable expect
from the platform'. It appears that Windows advocates see
that as, "What is the possibility that the platform cannot
be changed in the future?" While both arguments hold some
logic, we are talking about what *is* against what *could
be*, and as such, it is two different discussions.
We don't have proof that it *can't* be done, but we do
have proof that it 'hasn't yet' been done. When it is
done, we won't bring it up. But until then, I don't think
it is reasonable to expect us to accept that *is* against
the *could be* argument. Sound reasonable?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Presidential Candidates?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:25:35 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why am I unsurprised that mainstream conservatives are running micros~1
and the libertarians and liberals are all running open source? An
organization's ethos bleeds into its technology, it would seem.
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> Some Netcraft fun (in alphabetic order):
>
> -=Libertarian=-
> www.harrybrowne2000.org is running Apache/1.2.5 FrontPage/3.0.4 on BSD/OS
>
> -=Reform=-
> www.buchananreform.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4 or Windows 98
>
> -=Republican=-
> www.bush2000.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 (proxy in use, no OS guess)
>
> -=Democrat=-
> www.algore2000.com is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) PHP/4.0.1pl2
> secured_by_Raven/1.5.1 on Linux
>
> -=Reform=-
> www.hagelin.org is running Rapidsite/Apa-1.3.4 FrontPage/4.0.4.3 on IRIX
>
> -=Green=-
> www.votenader.com is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) PHP/4.0.0 on BSD/OS
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
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 19:24:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>
>"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>
>> Hey, I'm not trying to discredit MS in this venture, I'm
>> trying (and apparently succeeding) in discreditting you.
>
>hardly!
>
>> You say you have, without any qualifications, 'no
>> incentives' for promoting MS, then you say you have
>> financial gains to be made because your business succeeds
>> based on MS products. That is what we humans call a
>> 'contradiction'.
>
[snip]
>
>So, you can try to twist it as much as you'd like but the fact remains that
>I am not in any way "forced" by MS to say anything (good or bad) about them.
>I do so cause I wanna...
I'm not trying to twist anything. You stated two things
that were a direct contradiction to eachother. Now,
*maybe* that's not what you meant by those two statements,
but they did contradict eachother. And BTW, I never said
*you* were forced to use MS products. You said you have
no financial incentive for backing up MS products, then
you said you did a few sentences later. That's all I
pointed out.
>
>
>>
>> As to your 'why do you worry so much?' question, one could
>> ask the same of you. Why do you spend so much time trying
>> to tell us what morons we are for using *nix? Why does it
>> hurt you so terribly bad that we don't use Windows? What
>> are you so afraid of?
>
>I don't worry what you use and certainly do not fear it. i could care less.
>i do not call anyone a moron for using *nix. I do sometimes wonder why
>people choose to do things the harder way when an easier way is available.
Have you ever considered that some people find the *nix
way of doing things to be easier? I certainly do. If I
set something a certain way with *nix, I know, 100% that
the setting will stay the same. From my experience with
Windows, this isn't the case on Windows. To me, it is
easier to do something once the 'hard way' (as you put
it), than to do it countless times the 'easy way' (also as
you put it).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: <[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 12:20:03 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nk0ga$qbk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8njvlo$q8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Actually, I was thinking along the lines of going to a more powerful
> >equipment on the same family of hardware if that cannot help you can
> >move from a microcomputer running Linux to a minicomputer running Linux
> >or even to a mainframe running Linux. That is something that cannot be
> >done with Windows NT. My posting was a little joke that was also
> >intended to highlight that major difference.
>
> What sort of proof do you have that WindowsNT could
> not be adapted to run on many different classes of
> hardware?
>
> No, _WE_ can't do it, because it's closed source,
> but that doesn't mean that it empirically cannot
> be done.
Almost any OS can be ported to almost any hardware platform, if those who
control the source code have the desire to port it. Windows NT did start
out as a multiplatform design but it has, since the early days, been limited
to PC platforms only.
Linux on the other had has already been ported to many different platforms.
Any Linux sysadmin has the choice of platforms from several families of
microcomputers to minicomputers and mainframes. This is not a a theoretical
possibility as it with Windows NT, this is a working reality with Linux.
There is no need for the sysadmin to have access to the source code.
Therefore, I stand by the statement: That is something the can not be done
with WIndows NT. You as a NT administrator do not have that choice, while a
Linux sysadmin does have that choice.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:35:58 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > It seems to be the central issue, I think. If it is simply a matter of
> > one Usenet poster showing or failing to show respect for another Usenet
> > poster, I'd suggest it has nothing to do with the Linux community.
> > Though I must admit that Usenet is a much stronger part of the Linux
> > community than most other communities.
>
> It is more so a problem when the person showing a lack of basic respect for
> the long time users of Linux is a member of a official development team of a
> well know project like Roberto is for the KDE development team.
This is wrong in so many ways I must speak.
I show a lack of respect for long time users of Linux?
I lack respect for SOME of them, indeed.
I am a member of a "official development team" in the same way anyone
willing to spend his time coding is, so it's not too "official", really.
> He seems to
> discount the concerns of the very user base that have assisted building OS
> into a platform that makes his project possible.
Nonsense. If you feel a need to throw an ad hominem at me,
I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:30:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > I concede that you are running away.
>> >
>> > And I concede that you appear to be either dull witted or trolling.
>*plonk*
>>
>> Seeeeeeeee, he DID run away
>>
>> He Did!
>>
>> He Did run away.
>
>What cartoon character does that sound like to you folks?
Would it be:
I did see a putty tat, I did, I did, I did see a putty tat?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A highly Un-Scientific Research!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:36:52 GMT
Altavista search for: (Any Language)
count for +"Windows 95" =6925506
+"Windows 98" =2224027
+"Windows NT" =1092405
+"Windows 2000" =1880909
Total count for Windows Operating System =12122847
count for +Linux =18217291
Total count for Linux Operating System=18217291
make you own judgment as to witch Operating System is the biggest/growing
fastest ;-)
PS. Please note that i havent searched for any specific distros, i think a
1.5:1 ratio in favor for Linux will do for the time ;-).DS
/IL
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Switch to NT?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:14:11 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> We have a Solaris network with Sparcstation servers and PC's running NT
> Workstation. We use Solstice Network Client to run the Unix programs
> over the network. We have two sites tied by a T1 line, about 40 users.
> We use Applix for an office suite. There is some push to replace Applix
> with MS Office. I doubt that we will get rid of Solaris anytime soon,
> but we may add a Winnt server to provide MS Office. Eventually we may
> go NT. I've been thinking about playing around with Linux on
> a workstation.
>
> The main (and possibly only) reason for the change is the difficulty in
> converting Word documents. Also we have recently started collaborating
> on PowerPoint presentations. In addition, we will be increasing our use
> of GIS, particularly ArcView. ESRI seems to have abandoned Unix in
> favor of NT. In the future we may be more involved with web activity,
> possibly hosting our own web site or setting up an intranet.
So...let's see..having witnessed firsthand the problems of proprietary
formats and systems, you want to invest in more of the same???
Hello! Anybody home in there???
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:35:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>>> Boy Aaron, you seem to have impressed a lot of people lately!
>>>
>>>
>>>When they're about to be checkmated, they always find some way to
>>>tip-over the board.
>>>
>>
>>Of course, the chances of that happening are about as good
>>as the chances that people will stop spouting "Godwin's
>>Law" every few minutes.
>
>What irks me about "Godwin's law", is that it isn't a
>"law" at all. It's merely a "principle". That whole
>Godwin thing is abused to bloody much these days.
>
>Someguy1: "And Microsoft is like the Nazis!"
>Someguy2: "Ooh! I invoke Godwin's law! Am I cool now!"
>
>People shouldn't reference things they don't understand. :-P
>
>Godwin's principle stemmed from the idea that no matter
>what a topic of discussion was, that after a certain
>amount of time, it would degrade into a discussion
>about Nazi Germany, at which point, the discussion
>would become completely pointless and useless.
>
>That's it. No law. No "invoking". None of that.
>
>At the most, someone would say:
>"The thread is dead. Thank God for Godwin."
>and that would be the end of it.
And here is what irks me about Godwin. Anytime someone is
smart enough to say the above (the thread is dead thanks
to Godwin), some moron comes screaming that Godwin is a
pussy or anybody that says that is a pussy or "you're just
trying to avoid a fight" or some such nonsense. People
are morons, and it never ceases to amaze me how far out of
thier way some people will go to prove it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:16:41 -0400
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> >Robert Moir wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Nope. Its me realising its not worth my time attempting to talk to you.
> >> I
> >> > > notice you don't even bother answering the rest of my post. Can I
> >> assume,
> >> > > then, that you are conceding the point about the value, or lack of it,
> >> in
> >> > > your posts?
> >> >
> >> > I concede that you are running away.
> >>
> >> And I concede that you appear to be either dull witted or trolling. *plonk*
> >
> >Seeeeeeeee, he DID run away
> >
> >He Did!
> >
> >He Did run away.
You're unfamiliar with Tweety and Sylvester, aren't you....
> >
>
> And that would be the childish behavior I've mentioned
> before. I'm assuming we will soon see a new addition to
> your sig including some idiotic thing said in this thread?
>
> --
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:17:23 -0400
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I concede that you are running away.
> > >
> > > And I concede that you appear to be either dull witted or trolling.
> *plonk*
> >
> > Seeeeeeeee, he DID run away
> >
> > He Did!
> >
> > He Did run away.
>
> What cartoon character does that sound like to you folks?
see if this helps
Seeeeeee, I DID see a puhtty tat!
I did
I did see a putty tat!
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:17:58 -0400
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Byrns) wrote in
> <8njv6p$lg9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > I concede that you are running away.
> >> >
> >> > And I concede that you appear to be either dull witted or trolling.
> >*plonk*
> >>
> >> Seeeeeeeee, he DID run away
> >>
> >> He Did!
> >>
> >> He Did run away.
> >
> >What cartoon character does that sound like to you folks?
>
> Ooh! Ooh! I know!@# I know!@#
>
> TWEETY BIRD!@#
>
> WhatdidIwin?! WhatdidIwin?!
A free copy of Linux, and a brain so that you can use it.
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 05:50:55 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nk2jc$ss6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8nk0ga$qbk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8njvlo$q8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > >Actually, I was thinking along the lines of going to a more powerful
> > >equipment on the same family of hardware if that cannot help you can
> > >move from a microcomputer running Linux to a minicomputer running Linux
> > >or even to a mainframe running Linux. That is something that cannot be
> > >done with Windows NT. My posting was a little joke that was also
> > >intended to highlight that major difference.
> >
> > What sort of proof do you have that WindowsNT could
> > not be adapted to run on many different classes of
> > hardware?
> >
> > No, _WE_ can't do it, because it's closed source,
> > but that doesn't mean that it empirically cannot
> > be done.
>
> Almost any OS can be ported to almost any hardware platform, if those who
> control the source code have the desire to port it. Windows NT did start
> out as a multiplatform design but it has, since the early days, been
limited
> to PC platforms only.
Alpha, MIPS and PPC are "PC platforms" ? Yes, the latter two stopped after
NT4 service pack 3 and the former at Win2k Beta3, but that's a long way from
"the early days".
[chomp]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
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 19:43:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8nk2jc$ss6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8nk0ga$qbk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8njvlo$q8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> >Actually, I was thinking along the lines of going to a more powerful
>> >equipment on the same family of hardware if that cannot help you can
>> >move from a microcomputer running Linux to a minicomputer running
>> >Linux or even to a mainframe running Linux. That is something that
>> >cannot be done with Windows NT. My posting was a little joke that
>> >was also intended to highlight that major difference.
>>
>> What sort of proof do you have that WindowsNT could
>> not be adapted to run on many different classes of
>> hardware?
>>
>> No, _WE_ can't do it, because it's closed source,
>> but that doesn't mean that it empirically cannot
>> be done.
>
>Almost any OS can be ported to almost any hardware platform, if those
>who control the source code have the desire to port it. Windows NT did
>start out as a multiplatform design but it has, since the early days,
>been limited to PC platforms only.
Well, not exactly. WindowsNT ran on ARC compliant
PPC hardware, MIPS hardware, Alpha hardware, and
Intel hardware. The PPC and MIPS support was
eventually dropped, as was the Alpha support.
Actually, didn't someone in here say that Alpha
support was coming back in Windows2000?
>Linux on the other had has already been ported to many different
>platforms. Any Linux sysadmin has the choice of platforms from several
>families of microcomputers to minicomputers and mainframes. This is not
>a a theoretical possibility as it with Windows NT, this is a working
>reality with Linux. There is no need for the sysadmin to have access to
>the source code.
Which mainframes does Linux run on? Is it another
branch of the Linux project or something? I'd like
to see NetBSD do something like that.
>Therefore, I stand by the statement: That is something the can not be
>done with WIndows NT. You as a NT administrator do not have that
>choice, while a Linux sysadmin does have that choice.
I still can't quite stomach that statement. I think
that saying "WindowsNT currently does not run on
the diversity of hardware that Linux does" would be
much more accurate.
"Cannot" implies "impossible", and it is in no way
impossible for WindowsNT to run on other hardware,
should Microsoft choose to port it.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
