Linux-Advocacy Digest #513, Volume #28 Sun, 20 Aug 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451778 ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate (Cihl)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Tim Hanson)
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Whats a usenet troll? (mlw)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard (Gary Hallock)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous (John
Sanders)
Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's favorite
conspiracy theorist rides again... ("Robert Moir")
Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (rj friedman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451778
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:11:34 +1000
In article <q%Fn5.147$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe Malloy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for
> the fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the evidence for
> his reading comprehension problem. Ah, well, what can you expect from a
> Tholen, eh? The digest improper --
>
> {No, he hasn't said anything of value here yet!] (By the way, Tholen,
> here's some extras for you: ))(({{}}[[]---- - insert them where the sun
> don't....)
>
> Thanks for reading!
Why do you post exactly the same thing in each one of your "digests",
and then hypocritically accuse Tholen of not saying "anything of value"?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:29:40 +1000
"Ed Cogburn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > No. I have a full understanding of the behavior of the individuals
> > > > listed in my .sig, and how to keep their behavior under control
> > > >
> > > As a Unix Systems Engineer (whatever that is), you should know about
> > > something called a <dr evil>"killfile"</dr evil>. Perhaps that's the
best
> > > way to "keep their behaviour under control", and avoid pissing off
most of
> > > the readers of this ng.
> >
> > Clue for the fucking clueless:
> >
> > Putting someone in a killfile doesn't prevent them from
> > spreading lies about me.
>
>
> Clue for the really fucking clueless:
>
> We don't care. Your sig is a aggravation for a lot of people who are
> *not* in your sig. Your making more enemies using it than you would
> have to worry about without it. Do the right thing: Kill the .sig.
Not only that, but given his behaviour he could only ever be *happy* with
people spreading lies about him :P.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 10:52:50 GMT
Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> > [cross-posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy
> > as a point of possible interest]
> >
> > >From an interview in the Wall Street Journal:
> > >
> > >http://interactive.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB966551209980435711.h
> > >tm
> > >
> > >What's more, Microsoft last year began to take notice of Linux. In the
> > >spring, for example, it released a study showing that Windows NT
> > >outperformed Linux in some common computing tasks.
> > >
> > >The study caused an uproar in the Linux camp, with Mr. Torvalds and
> > >others suggesting at the time that they had somehow been rigged.
> > >
> > >Subsequent tests, though, showed Microsoft was right, and in his
> > >interview, Mr. Torvalds conceded that he initially had been "in denial"
> > >on the matter.
> > >
> > >"We had been arrogant," he said, adding it was painful for him to admit
> > >that Windows was better than Linux, at least in the areas covered by the
> > >Microsoft test.
> >
> > I don't even think "better" is a proper term, because
> > "better" is subjective. I think "performed faster"
> > is adequate, and it helps alleviate the whole
> > "penis comparison" that benchmarks tend to degrade
> > into.
> >
> > I think that this clearly makes Linus the better
> > man, as it's not easy for anyone to admit when
> > they were incorrect, especially when they have
> > a lot of admiration and integrity on the line.
> >
> > Such humility is quite deserving of grand respect, IMHO.
> > It was this kind of attitude that I respected Linus for
> > in the past.
> >
> > I think what people need to understand, is that these
> > different operating systems will never ever be the one
> > true OS. Just use what suits you, and suggest to others
> > that they might like what you like, but if they don't
> > then leave them alone. And if they find reason to
> > list a bunch of convoluted reasons why "your choice
> > sucks", then most likely, they'll be full of crap,
> > and you can pick them apart, and make them into
> > fools at your leisure.
> >
> > I think it's perfectly acceptable to state that you
> > don't like a certain software product, or OS, and
> > leave it at that, but I think it's childish for
> > someone to go out of their way to explain why
> > something is empiracally inferior, just so that
> > they can feel better about themselves.
> >
> > >Now, will the linux apologists finally admit they were wrong?
> >
> > They don't even have to do that, IMHO. I would've
> > just liked to have heard them say "gee, that's
> > interesting. I'd like to verify that, and if it's
> > true, find out why it turned out that way."
>
> I think it's unfortunate Linus gave the Mindcraft "study" as much
> credence as he did, given the fact that it was a benchmark designed to
> exploit the strengths of NT and the weaknesses of Linux from the gitgo.
> As such it was merely a marketing exercise, and a sure loser for Linux
> advocates. I wasn't there, but I would have held out for a more
> balanced set of tests, as well as a balance of relative cost.
>
> --
> The 80's -- when you can't tell hairstyles from chemotherapy.
I think it's always a good thing when Linux' weaknesses are pointed
out, even if that's being done out of commercial interests. These
weaknesses can then be dealt with in an efficient manner. One could
regard the Mindcraft-"studies" to be a successful trolling-exercise.
As you know, the Mindcraft-tests pointed out that Linux had a
relatively poor implementation of a TCP/IP-stack. In reaction to that,
the TCP/IP-stack has been subsequently rewritten from scratch in
kernel 2.4. The new TCP/IP-stack is now also the first to be
*completely* IPv4-compliant. I've seen some tests of the new stack,
and it blows the socks off anything else on the market. I can't wait
for kernel 2.4 to come out.
--
A single "thank you"-note is worth more than a billion dollars.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 11:22:41 GMT
Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
> Steve Mading wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : The P-47 Thunderbolt didn't exist at the beginning of the war. > : Maybe
>you're thinking of the P-39? It is considered a superior
> > : fighter-bomber and is usually mentioned in the same breath with the
> > : P-51. It was an excellent fighter with great manuveurability, and
> > : built like a tank, and could carry a big payload. It was much better
> > : at ground attack than the P-51, yet the Air Force continued to use
> > : the P-51 in a fighter-bomber role and lost significant casualties
> > : doing so. P-47s with drop tanks would have been better.
> >
> > Too many pronouns. I can't tell which planes you mean with the
> > various "it"s in the above paragraph.
>
> I don't know what you mean, I never said "its in the above paragraph"?
>
> >
> > The P-47, while a good ground-attack fighter, had too much mass
> > to dogfight.
>
> The P-47 *did* dogfight a *lot*, at least in the Pacific were it was
> used *extensively*. I don't know the details about the European theater
> except to say it was there. Yes, the Thunderbolt was a huge plane, but
> it also had a *huge* radial engine, which more than made up for the size
> of the plane. Yes, the P-51 was more agile, but only by a few
> percentage points. I can point you to a wargame, by a commercial
> company written by a well-known author who is well regarded for the
> research he does for his products (Pacific War, by Gary Grigsby), that
> puts the P-47 only one point behind the P-51 in manuverability, 24 to
> 23. I've also seen a documentary about WW2 planes where the Thunderbolt
> is highly regarded for its dogfighting ability, considering its size,
> not just its ground attack. There were aces who flew P-47s. The true
> value of the P-51 wasn't so much its agility, it was roughly equal to
> the British Spitfire in that category (a plane that was already a couple
> or three years old when the P-51 finally came out), it was its long
> operational range that made a big difference in Europe (escorting B17s
> over Germany) and a *huge* difference in the Pacific (escorting B29s
> over Japan).
>
> > really agile in the sky. The best combo was P-51's against
> > other aircraft, and P-47's against ground units.
>
> Ideally, yes. But when there weren't any P-51s around, the P-47 did
> just fine on its own.
This is just my personal opinion, but the P-51 with the 360 canopy was
the best looking fighter of the war, probably due to the inline engine,
followed by the Corsair.
--
Good day to let down old friends who need help.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 00:18:51 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 19 Aug 2000 18:30:59 GMT...
...and Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Sorry all, MS office is not coming to Linux
>
> : http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/08/17/000817hnmslinux.xml
>
>
> I don't *want* MS Office or IE on Linux.
I most definitely want them on Linux, but not right now. As soon as
the software economy has normalised and we've got free market
conditions everywhere, the more platforms Microsoft products are
available on, the better. But for now? No thanks.
mawa
--
Dyson Spheres for sale!
For further information, call Hydrogen 21 cm
(Alpha Centauri; $125/ns)
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats a usenet troll?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:51:38 -0400
Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> mark wrote:
> >
> > In article <399e3ce4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bloke wrote:
> > >hey people,
> > >im a bit of a news group newbie and was wondering what is a troll in the
> > >context of news groups?
> > >im not losing any sleep or anything.....just curious
> > >cya's
> > >
> > >
> > >> Someone who tries to start an argument
> >
> > > No it's not, you piece of sh*t
> >
> > Yes it is - and I can prove it (but I won't now)...
>
> Mostly, it's people who resort to gratuitous name-calling, like you,
> idiot. :-)
This is a good picture of one:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20000820
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 08:26:00 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
>
> Eight 2 way 604e's, B50's with 512MB each to be exact. Behind dual
> fault-tolerant Cisco LocalDirectors and dual PIX. App servers are H70's
> with a GB or more. I've tested and found that they can outperform the 300GL
> (Windows 2000 box) for static web serving but...
>
> Why can't they do what a $1000 workstation do? I know this is a IBM problem
> but this kinda thing plauges IS depts worldwide. Windows works out of the
> box more times than UNIX does in my experience.
>
> And the cost differential is starting to raise heads in corporate. Less
> cost for more performance is compelling!
The 604e has a very poor cache design. For some applications, I found it ran
4-5 times slower than an old 590 box. For other apps the 604e was faster. I
believe 604e also has poor floating point performance. The 630 Power III chip
is much better in both respects.
Gary
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 08:24:54 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8nkihs$m62$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [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.
> >
> > As I have said before, Windows people keep talking about Windows Explorer
> as
> > though it were an analog for the X Windowing Systems' windows managers. I
> > agree that is not accurate, but, I was giving them the benefit of the
> doubt
> > for the sake of this discussion.
>
> It's the closest analog you can get, in Windows.
I would think that that you could get closer. I think Windows is the
closest thing to a window manager you could get in Windows.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's
favorite conspiracy theorist rides again...
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 15:39:44 +0100
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> I was a DRDOS user and was told by my own IS department at the time that
> I would 'have to' use MSDOS since DRDOS was not 'compatible with windows'.
> I recall that the guy had a slightly smug smile at the time - he'd never
> really approved of my DRDOS massively outperforming his MSDOS.
>
> DRDOS disappeared from my office over the following couple of months, I
> recall nobody actually questioned the wisdom of the IS guys (me included)
>
> I'm still very p*ssed off about it. I don't like being stung by anyone,
> particularly is such an underhand way, and certainly haven't trusted
> microsoft in any way since at all. Nothing Microsoft have done since
> that appalling act has served to improve its credibility in my eyes. I
> find the beer adverts on television more convincing than Microsoft.
So it is Microsoft's fault that your IS department were incompetent enough
to believe what magazines say about beta products without performing their
own tests that apply to their customers specifc needs?
Hey now you mention it, that shadow on the grassy knoll DOES look a bit
like Bill Gates if you squint a bit. And in a photo of the Apollo 13 rocket
before launch I see someone who *could* be Steve Ballmer fiddling with bits
of the rocket.
Why stop there? What if World Wars One and Two were Microsoft's fault too?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted.
Date: 20 Aug 2000 14:58:25 GMT
On Sun, 18 Aug 3900 11:33:52, OSguy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I like Xcdroast (which does use cdrecord and mkisofs programs). It has done
> > >very well for me in Burning both audio and data CDs with a mix of ISO9660 and
> > >Joilet filesystems. I will be even happier for a version of Xcdroast that will
> > >have the option to Erase a CDRW disk.
> >
> > Xcdroast uses cdrecord to to the real work, so you must have the
> > program. Just do a:
> > cdrecord -dev=0,6,0 -speed=2 -blank=all -eject
> > (replace the 6 in the dev= with your CD's ID, and use a reasonable
> > speed). If you don't like typing commands, put the command in a file
> > and hook it to an icon on your window manager.
>
> Thank you. That is exactly what I'm doing now. I'd just like to see it in
> Xcdroast one day for convenience....telling it to record to a CDRW, and have it
> automatically erase before writing to the CDRW. It would be nice, however, I'm
> happy with Xcdroast for the rest of the CDR options and use Xcdroast heavily.
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>From your knowledge of xcdroast, or any other cdr
prg, would these desires make life easier/harder :
1. I *like* to copy all files to a freshly
formatted partition to 'assemble' a new cd.
2. I'd prefer the fresh partition to be HPFS
since most files would be coming from HPFS
partitions.
3. I'd like to see a real 'manual' to read,
rather than the usual history-list-of-bug-fixes
that so often serves as a manual.
TIA,
Vacuo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
Hear Timtron live on 7415 khz worldwide shortwave.
Tron power!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 20 Aug 2000 15:01:13 GMT
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:17:14 "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
¯> Too bad for all of you. In a democracy not everybody likes
¯> every law - but they still have to abide by them - like it
¯> or not. MS broke the law; they got caught; the United States
¯> of America took them to court; the United Statesa of America
¯> proved they were guilty. Whether or not *you* like the law
¯> has nothing to do with it. Live with it.
¯Depends upon the interpretation of the law.
Which is why people who devote their lives to the study of
the law and its interpretations make the decisions on the
evidence placed before them. Live with it.
It's also why people who are ignorant of the law (that means
you), and those who try to pretend that the facts that
proved the guilty party guilty don't exist (that also means
you) - i.e., those who are INCOMPETENT to render an
intelligent, reasoned, opinion (WHICH MEANS YOU) don't find
themselves in the position to perpetrate their ignorance and
bias.
Eat your MS loving heart out.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
