Linux-Advocacy Digest #742, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: "pure" Linux??
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:04:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > I find that understanding the principles is usually enough
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> And this is classic Max.
>
> "I really don't understand what I'm talking about, but I've learned a
> few of the words involved in the discussion so I'll try to pass myself
> off as an expert."
What part of "understanding" do you not comprehend?
Your just as bad as Tholen, if not worse.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:08:15 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:24:19 -0500, Jerry O'Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
>..
>> My biggest problem w/ friends who bring me their fucked up computers is
>> after I restore windoze to plead with them not to install every piece of
>> crap software like IE that comes their way.
>Can you image what would happen if you forced any distribution of Linux down
>their throats...
There would certainly be none of these implosion issues that
arise from merely wanting to exploit the full library of
applications available for a particular platform.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:14:48 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:39:19 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:17:04 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> It would be if you were the robber baron that conspired to ensure
>> >> that anyone that wanted to drive would have to buy your particular
>> >> brand of car.
>> >
>> >Build your own system then. Even during the days before the consent
>decree,
>>
>> That is pure bullshit.
>
>No it's not. That's what I did. I've built machines without Windows on them
>too. It's easy.
>
>> >I was able to get a machine without Windows.
>>
>> ...and run what on it?
>
>Whatever I wanted to. At the time, it was DOS. I went out, bought a copy,
Which is just another Microsoft operating system.
Avoiding the forced bundling of Windows & DOS just to run DOS...
...talk about the choices.
>and ran it. I could have bought OS/2. Heck, I could have run 4DOS or DrDOS.
>
>> One was lucky to find ANY OS/2 software on sale anywhere.
>
>Not in 1994.
Yes in 1994.
In 1994 one was lucky to find OS/2 software on sale.
>
>>One
>> simply didn't find GEM software anywhere, nor any for Geos.
>> You would be lucky to find copies of Unix OS distributions of
>> any kind to buy, nevermind actual applications.
>
>So? You said it was impossible. It wasn't.
Avoiding the MS tax so that you can just run what comes
on the GEM gold installation media is hardly very useful.
Ditto for Solaris, SCO and NeXTstep.
>
>> Plus, "building your own national phone system" is meaningless
>> if there are other 'essential facilities' that also have to be
>> dealt with.
>
>Such as? Most machines I saw at the time were running WordPerfect, and if
>you wanted to swap documents, that's what you needed.
So? Where was the GEM x86 version of WordPerfect or some
application that was 'compatbile enough'. Who was selling
what non-DOS applications in your neck of the woods or mine?
like finding them for the Amiga or Atari ST and both of
>
>> As I said before, you cheapen the term theft quite gravely.
>
>No, I don't. You see, there's this little thing called copyright. It
>applies.
Copyright is purely a contstruct of the public interest.
Furthermore, an unlicenced usage of intellectual property
does not deprive the owner of that property.
Again, you less the meaning of theft by using to mean something
other than actual theft. You are also perpetuating the propaganda
of corporate feudalism.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:22:12 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Again, you less the meaning of theft by using to mean something
> other than actual theft. You are also perpetuating the propaganda
> of corporate feudalism.
Oh... you're one of those.
Never mind. Enjoy your debate.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:34:00 -0400
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Apparently, many on the left believe that it is PERFECTLY ethical
> : to tell lies as long as it advances the leftist agenda.
>
> The left has no monopoly on the use of deception and lies to further
> its diabolical agenda.
Did I ever claim that?
>
> Case in point: the so-called "War on Drugs."
>
> If the left seems more expert in lying, that can probably be explained
> by its having been in power for most of the past century. Let a
> right-wing regime take power for a little while, and you may find
> yourself longing for the "good old" days when leftist weirdos like Al
> Gore were the worst thing you had to worry about.
>
> The biggest problem is not ideology but an excessive concentration of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> power. All political power is inherently dangerous, and concentrated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> political power most often is deadly. The majority of thoughtful
> people on all sides realize this. Unfortunately, the fedgov has
> claimed FAR too much power over things that it has no Constitutional
> authority to touch. That's what has to change. Until it does,
> changing from Demopublican to Republicrat or vice versa is unlikely to
> solve much of anything.
>
> Joe
Precisely. Statists are not to be trusted.
Vote Libertarian.
--
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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 30 Aug 2000 00:41:06 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 03:51:27 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> > > > "Daddy has a roommate" "Heather has two mommies"
[ snip ]
>Please tell me exactly WHAT purpose is served by teaching 6-year olds
>about human sexuality (heterosexual or homosexual), other than
>propagandizing them to engage in such before they are ready.
Do the books actually say anything explicit about sexuality ? For example,
are these pieces of literature pornographic ? Or do they merely deal with
the fact that not everyone lives in a "traditional" family ?
If the books actually describe sexual acts, I can see why they'd be unsuitable
for small children, but it's not self evident from the titles that this is
what they do.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:42:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:17:04 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> It would be if you were the robber baron that conspired to ensure
> >> that anyone that wanted to drive would have to buy your particular
> >> brand of car.
> >
> >Build your own system then. Even during the days before the consent decree,
>
> That is pure bullshit.
>
> >I was able to get a machine without Windows.
>
> ...and run what on it?
The fact that other vendors couldn't compete with MS isn't their fault.
The lack of OS/2 software stems from an early failure by IBM - they
charged $500 for the OS/2 SDK, while MS gave away copies of the Windows
SDK. Guess which one was in demand from small developers? Even given
the existing penetration (into true blue accounts) of OS/2.
Likewise, Apple's marketshare would have been loads bigger had they gone
for volume instead of margin. But they didn't. in teh early days (Win
1.x, 2.x) MS didn't dominate anything other than DOS. It was only with
Windows 3.0 that they leaped forward. And there was a fair bit of time
for other vendors to respond; they didn't.
>
--
James A. Robertson
Senior Sales Engineer, Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:49:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [...]
>> >> It certainly not a stupid and unfounded assumption to figure that
>> >> hiring
>> >> an accountant would have reduced my tax bill.
>> >
>> >Perhaps. You came up with a specific figure. You said an accountant
>> >could have come up with $4K in extra deductions.
>> >
>> >Name them.
>>
>> Why? Are you suggesting that hiring an accountant would not have
>> reduced my tax bill? If you aren't trying to refute my position, you're
>> just trolling.
>
>Wrong.
Typical troll response. "Wrong". Christ.
PEOPLE!: DON'T start Usenet messages with the word "wrong".
>YOU made a claim that a crafty accountant could have increased your
>deductions by $4 K. I'm merely challenging it. Your claim, provide some
>evidence.
Fuck off.
PEOPLE!: Don't waste time quibbling.
>Particularly since JS/PL showed that your figures were erroneous anyway
>and when challenged, you came up with some things that the accountant
>couldn't possibly have controlled at the time you did your taxes ("if
>only I had visited with some business clients when I went to Baltimore
>and invested my money differently").
>
>IOW, you fabricated the entire things.
I said something. Oops.
You wish I was wrong. Oops.
I don't care if I can list any deductions, Joe. You're just trolling.
YOUR claim, it seems, is that a good accountant couldn't have found four
thousand more dollars in deductions. You're probably right. But since
that was an off-handed comment, and hardly even abstractly crucial to my
position (which you haven't even bothered to misrepresent, as you
usually do) which you've never been able to pretend to understand to
begin with.
You're an idiot, Joe Ragosta. Go away.
[...]
>Considering that your posts are mostly fabrications, outright lies, and
>fact-free, that's a good thing. Your chances of "winning" an argument
>are pretty slim.
>
>> to insist is "shifting blame" is me modifying my argument or position in
>> order to continue the discussion. The fact that you get so distracted
>> by this, and so hung up on picayune trivia (such as whether precisely
>> $4000 of additional deductible expenses might be derived from my
>> income), it seems obvious you want to "be right" more than you want to
>> discuss the issues in a calm and fair manner.
>
>No, the issue is that you keep making stupid statements without evidence
>and when challenged, you admit that you lied and made the whole thing up.
The issue is that you're an idiot, Joe. I don't post to Usenet to "win"
arguments. I post to *have* discussions. Unfortunately, I'm forced to
spend most of my time fighting off ankle-biters such as yourself.
[...]
>> Quite frankly, I'm not happy with everything I've ever posted, and don't
>> like to be mistaken or in error, which I have been on occasion. But I
>> will stand behind every post I've ever made.
>
>ROTFLMAO.
>
>So you've made posts that you know were mistaken or in error but you'll
>still stand behind them?
>
>That's as good an example of your irrationality as anything I've seen.
And as good an example of your idiocy as anyone in the world could
possibly need.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: "pure" Linux??
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:28:06 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Excuse me while I reply to mjcr (his original post didn't show up on my
> newsgroups)....
>
> Steve Matheson wrote:
>
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Also you
> > > might also stay away from Mandrake since they seem to have modified
the
> > > kernel.
>
> I don't buy that Mandrake made an unapproved modification to the Linux
kernel
> after being approved by Linus or Alan Cox (especially a stable Linux
Kernel
> that Mandrake is based on). I'd believe that they may have modified other
> scripts or supporting packages (ie-Run Levels).
>
> Please give specifics of these modifications that are not or will not be
in
> the present or future approved Linux kernels.
Get a copy of the sources for the mandrake kernel and then get the standard
kernel sources for the same version. Expand both archives and then run your
favorite varation of the diff command comparing the two source trees.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:15:37 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't think I said it was impossible. I think I said that it was
> much more difficult that you seem to think it is. You are describing
> abstractions and just ignoring the nitty-gritty implementation details
> that make it complicated to actually do. If you think it is worth what
> might be years of effort, well, then you are free to start work. If
> you come back in six months with a prototype that does a subset of what
> you want and it shows promise, then some folks might actually want to
> help you. That's how it works.
I have noticed that Paul has not yet posted the concrete example of the
encoding for "touch" or "yes" to could be used for the meta installed that
he seems to be arguing for. Perhaps he is admitting that the details are
tricker than he tought when he glossed over them.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:57:00 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:52:22 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> If you can install MacOS9 on a bare machine then it is indeed
> >> the equivalent of a full licence of any Microsoft OS.
> >
> >Please show me where I can buy a bare machine that will run MacOS9, and
> >which does not come pre-bundled with a copy of MacOS.
If that were possible then those who like the Mac hardware could use it to
run Linux without having the pay for the MacOS that may not even be used or
wanted.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:26:45 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The fact that other vendors couldn't compete with MS isn't their fault.
> The lack of OS/2 software stems from an early failure by IBM - they
> charged $500 for the OS/2 SDK, while MS gave away copies of the Windows
> SDK. Guess which one was in demand from small developers? Even given
> the existing penetration (into true blue accounts) of OS/2.
What? The Windows SDK of that era used to cost about $400.00 and would only
work with Microsoft C which cost about $600.00 and if you needed assembly
language access that was another purchase around $400.00 for MASM.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:40:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> These opinions were honest and sincerely stated. Whether they are
>> correct or not is an entirely different question. Several points in
>> those remarks, I would no longer agree with in the context in which they
>> were given, though I give no guarantees of their lack of accuracy
>> otherwise. Your insistence that I'm being dishonest in having or
>> stating these opinions simply because you disagree with them or consider
>> them an unfair indictment of KDE or later changed my opinion is, I'm
>> almost afraid to say, an example of your failure to rise to the
>> intellectual challenge of our "game".
>>
>> I'm afraid nobody's going to be offering you any parting gifts, dude.
>>
>
>So you are claiming that it is perfectly acceptable to make statements which
>are libelous and totally false as long as you are totally ignorant of the
>reality of the situation and even though you know you are ignorant?
The only thing "false" about my statements were the fact that it was my
opinion; they may be mistaken, but they aren't false. I did not "know I
was ignorant" (isn't that an oxymoron?) because as far as I knew my
statements were correct. Libelous? Cut me a break. This is Usenet and
I was talking about an open source software project!
I am claiming what I stated, no more and no less. I can't force you to
understand it, but please don't bother trying to paraphrase it unless
*make sense*. It just makes it obvious you have nothing to say of the
matter.
The longer this crap goes on the more possible it seems that I really do
simply make too much sense for some people to deal with. Somewhere in
the sands of time they got stuck in "troll mode", and they don't seem to
realize that I have no interest in "disengaging" as most posters do,
eventually. I've seen *many* of the most vehement and abusive posters
make some startlingly good observation and provide useful information,
like you, Gary, and Aaron and Loren. But even you guys are not a whole
lot better than 'JS/PL' and Joe and Christopher and, of course, my old
buddy 'Roger'.
Its easy to seem to be trolling, of course. I've done it myself; as far
as I know, Nathaniel still doesn't read any of my posts, or at least he
hasn't responded to the last few. He was convinced I was being an
asshole in using his statements as the point of a discussion on just why
Windows sucks as much as it does, or rather how it sucks as much as it
does, and why. No matter how I tried to assuage his anxiety that I was
attacking him by arguing against his opinion, every time I tried to use
something he said as an example of the kind of problematic behavior I
was trying to talk about, he'd go wild.
So I figure this a good chance that you, Gary, and a handful of others,
at least, are just so used to going through the "Wrong!" motions, that
you end up wasting all your time. There's a lot to be said for heated
flame-war meta-discussion, of course. Apparently, some people post for
almost no other reason. But I'm not here for that.
I don't post to Usenet through any great humanitarian impulse, really,
and I don't consider debate here to be "productive", really, on a
real-life scale. I post to Usenet, as I've said several times recently,
to *discuss*, not to *be right*. And you, and many others, seem to
waste far too much time trying (futilely, IMHOBTJMO) to "prove me
wrong". I don't 'care' if I'm wrong, I *want* to be wrong. Which is to
say that I want to state my opinion as a falsifiable theory, and watch
it get knocked over, validly, fairly, and intellectually. When I set it
back up, I don't care to be distracted by lots of yammering about how
'ignorant' I was; I want to hear something better. It isn't *insulting*
when I'm actually shown my error, its *gratifying*. I'm not here to win
the discussion; I'm here to discuss. But by the same token, if you
aren't producing a better theory or providing your own, potentially
false, opinion, then you're just wasting my time, and yours. Mine,
because I don't fall for it; yours, because you might have something
better to do.
And frankly, I think its a problem that there are too many people on
Usenet who can't keep up with an honest discussion without resorting to
ad hominem argument. An ad hominem attack isn't just something you can
*quote*, which they do to teach the concept with a simple example. Ad
hominem argument is when you use the word "wrong" as an entire sentence;
its when you don't present a superior counter-proposal to the persons
position in verbose graciousness but just say "prove it". Its when you
don't contribute more ideas than ridicule. Its 'meta' discussion that
isn't meta-discussion, but just a more passive-aggressive kind of flame
war.
It doesn't upset me much that you guys so misunderstand and misrepresent
me; I'm used to it. That's happened to me my whole life (not that I'm
unique in the slightest). What bothers me is that nobody seems to have
much else to do; every exchange ends in squabbling, and any real
discussion between sensible people is quickly torn apart by
ankle-biters. If I'm going to waste my life on Usenet, I'd rather waste
it doing something a bit more intellectually stimulating than fighting
off this kind of nonsense.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:54:18 GMT
It appears that on Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:31:49 GMT, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:56:15 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >They were generally accepted to be:
>>> >Runs as many DOS and Win16 applications as possible
>>> >Runs Win32 apps
>>> >Can use DOS drivers
>>> >Runs in 4MB of RAM
>>> >Has pre-emptive scheduling
>>>
>>> It only fails on one of those then - the RAM requirements, obviously.
>>
>>Obviously? Win95 ran in 4MB or ram. And it did so equally as fast as Win
>>3.1 did. Of course it ran MUCH faster than Win 3.1 when you had 8-16MB of
>>ram, but that wasn't the requirement.
>
> No it wasn't.
>
> Don't try to bullshit us. We experienced these things ourselves and
> we simply know better from our own recollection of the events.
Exactly.
>
>[deletia]
>
> Win95 is a pig in 8M, much slower than Win3x.
It's a total pig. I read through the rest of the messages posted in
this thread so far before replying, I have yet to see anyone even
claim to have run win95 in 4 megs themselves. I did. I had a number of
IBM PS/Vs, 486SX25 with 4 megs ram. I often used one for server
administration. My requirements were very minimal - telnet, calc, and
notepad. This worked in Win3.1.
I reformatted the disk on one of these and installed 95 on it within a
month or two of release. It started swapping with *nothing* running...
click on Start and wait for 5+ seconds while it churns the disk before
the menu starts to draw... I am not kidding. It was NOT usable. 3.1
was, on the same hardware. I reformatted and reinstalled the old 3.1
from an image on the server the same night, naturally.
After testing each of the configurations we had, it was determined
that 95 was only useful on the machines with 16 megs, which ran
particular large windows programs that were very bad for using up all
the heap space. It did help there I must admit. But it certainly was
not usable in 4 megs. It wasn't even an advantage on the 16 meg
machines that were used primarily for Dbase - we were still using the
DOS version of Dbase, which was faster and leaner than the windows
version and of course didn't use any special windows heap space.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
