Linux-Advocacy Digest #783, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:53:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> >Whatever. If you really believe what you write, I see no way to
>> >convince you.
>>
>> Hey, we're getting somewhere. Maybe after a while, you'll progress to
>> the point where you can understand how you can convince me, or at least
>> enjoy trying.
>
>I meant that I see no way to penetrate a skull denser than a neutron
>star.
To a man without a screwdriver, a screw is an immovable object, and a
hammer an irresistible force.
[...]
>> >Noone said life was easy. Specially, noone said life should be easy
>> >for you.
>>
>> No-one said that you were trying to communicate, either, but I got that
>> impression from the fact you posted on Usenet.
>
>Indeed noone did. Until now. I am trying to communicate. Are you?
Yes, and I have to tell you, you aren't doing a very good job. Do you
get it yet? I don't give up on ankle-biters. They give up on me.
[...]
>If it's my right, you need not care about that, either.
I'm afraid that once again you are mistaken. As a free man, I consider
it my responsibility to care about your rights.
[...]
>This has nothing to do with whatever you were asking back then.
I know, you've been ankle-biting too long for it to matter.
[...]
>> Of course I am. I insult people, sure, but I don't ridicule them, like
>> you do. And I only insult people who try to use ridicule.
>
>You don't ridicule? Good. You would be even more obnoxious if you
>did. And you are rationalizing.
No, I'm explaining, and will continue explaining until *you* are blue in
the face, or quite ankle-biting.
>> [...]
>> >Believe it or not, I kinda agree. I don't consider myself a member
>> >of the "linux community" in one of the ways it's often presented,
>> >like a world-wide group of selfless coders serving a horde of
>> >enlightened free-software-loving users.
>>
>> You haven't been reading what I've written. The community includes the
>> horde, in a lot of ways. And none of the coders are selfless, AFAIK,
>> just community-conscious.
>
>Who are you to define to what community anyone belongs? Noone.
>
>> >I consider such a wide definition of the linux community to
>> >define a community full of people I don't like, so I consider
>> >myself a member of a much smaller community.
>>
>> Yes, we know. You're an elitist at heart, through and through.
>
>Well, any self-defined community is elitist.
I can't see how that's true. [Here's where I prove I'm not just
ankle-biting, by expounding on the subject. Those driven to distraction
by my frequent rambling should cease reading now.]
The concept of a community as self-defining is, itself, something of a
"deep abstraction", don't you think? Hard enough to define what a
'community' is to begin with, without adding potentially gratuitous
adjectives. Can a "community" be elitist, or is that term properly
reserved only for the members of the community. Let's assume, for a
second, that I actually indicated that I was calling the community
elitist, rather than you, as an individual. If we can define a
community in the common vernacular, as an abstraction representative of
a group of people with similar goals which interact with each other
somewhat routinely, then a "self-defined" community would, I presume,
mean a community which defines its own goals. The obvious
consideration, then, would be whether a community can have its goals
defined for it by some external observer.
Apparently, which method is used to 'define' the community itself,
internal or external, is a dichotomy that might be somewhat useful to
entertain, at least provisionally. (I abhor dichotomies, as you may
know, because they lead to false dichotomies almost inexorably, but
we'll deal with that if it becomes an issue.) An externally defined
community (which we might go so far as to say is the kind "the Linux
community" is) has its goals defined from outside the community, by the
definition of it as "the Linux community". Its goals would be "using
Linux". Because of the somewhat unique nature of Linux itself, this
includes developing, running, and advocating.
The alternative, the "smaller community" which you define as
self-defining, would provide, appropriately enough, the inverse
relationship. By defining its goals from within (which you haven't
done, but we'll assume its simply "agree with Roberto" at this point for
convenience's sake), such a community would potentially be free to
define its goal as "to be elitist", or some super-set of that sentiment,
as in being elitist about some specific thing. But so could an
externally-defined community. There seems no distinction in this regard
between the two, it seems.
So your comment devolves to whether a community can be defined as
elitist in its goals. The answer is obvious; of course it can. Is that
to say that each member of that community is an elitist? Well, the fact
that so vague and thinly defined a group as "a community" is dealt with
as an abstraction, I'd have to say that to presume that all members of
an elitist community can be considered elitists is something of an
inductive error. The definition of the community's goals is certainly
not indicative of the primary goals of its individuals; in such cases, a
more concrete abstraction (if you'll forgive the oxymoron and the
inadvertent reference to an earlier instance of your ankle-biting) such
as "army" or "company" or even "society" would be indicated. The fact
is that merely being "a community" indicates that the goals of the
community (as self-determined or categorized by external observers) are
not even deterministically related to the primary goals of the
individuals who make up that community (aside, possibly from an
inclusion in them of "be a member" of said community), though we should
expect, I think, that they wouldn't be very conflicting. Any community
who's individuals are at cross-purposes would cease to be a community,
just as any community which expected that all members would make the
goals of the community their own primary goals might be considered to
cease being a community, and become something else; an association or a
society or such.
So I'm afraid that while a community may be elitist, that has nothing to
do with the fact that you are an elitist, and unless you're going to go
further and establish through force of will a community whose
self-described goal is "to be elitist about Roberto's opinion", I'd say
you're swimming up-stream.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:11:12 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ole39$lg4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:8ojf9r$q75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :>
> :> System with KDE 1.93 (approx) and netscape running:
> :> total used free shared buffers
cached
> :> Mem: 57636 56136 1500 34572 1332
20776
> :> -/+ buffers/cache: 34028
> :> 23608
> :> Swap: 72256 1188 71068
>
> : Exactly as I said. A system with X, KDE and Netscape is using 57MB's.
> : There is simply no way a system running this plus Apache and several
other
> : programs can only be using 32MB.
>
> You don't understand how Linux uses the memory. The cache and
> buffers are never cleared until they need to be (because a
> program requested some more memory). The cache and buffers
> are allowed to grow dynamically until they eat up all available
> space. They never shrink until some program actually asks for
> more memory, then they are shrunk to make room. If the system
> has been running for a while, all the 'unused' memory will have
> been temporarily used by the buffers and cache, where it stays
> until there's an actual need to free it for some program.
Which is exactly the same way it works under Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:14:26 -0500
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:sZur5.17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In my first posting i said 35 MB for Linux, witch the other postings in
this
> subject has proven me right on, and perhaps i should point out that im
> running IIS 5 (full install) on Windows 2000 Professional for intranet and
> testing.
>
> Judging by your screenshots Windows 2000 Server hogs on more than twice
that
> much...virtual memory...?
> Yeah sure! if you wanna lagg another 10 miles behind with that comparison
> so...
???? What? My screenshots showed that I was using only 21MB of memory How
is that twice what you claim?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:01:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Said Stephen S. Edwards II in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >> [...]
>> >> >> >Of course he's going to be biased... he's a part
>> >> >> >of the KDE project. It's unfair to expect him
>> >> >> >to be anything otherwise.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm sorry, this is such a horrible mangled bunch of post-modern
>> >> >> bullshit, I couldn't resist responding. No, it is not unfair to expect
>> >> >> anyone to be unbiased, regardless of their affiliations.
>> >> >
>> >> >No, it is stupid and unrealistic, but I don't believe it's unfair.
>> >>
>> >[...]
>> >> If you truly believe it is 'stupid and unrealistic' to *expect* someone
>> >> to be unbaised, then you believe it is unfair to demand that they be
>> >> unbiased.
>> >
>> >No, I believe it's stupid and unrealistic to expect ME to be unbiased
>> >on one specific issue. I know it is, because I am not.
>>
>> Well, that would be a special case, then, huh? ;-)
>
>We were talking about me being biased or not in one specific
>issue, so I am not a special case of that. I am all of that.
So your contention is that all contributors to the KDE project are all
as biased as you are, and incapable of providing an unbiased viewpoint
(and therefore generally incompetent to have an opinion)? It might not
be a very outrageous suggestion, I guess, but I wouldn't take it for
granted. Still, if its true, its all the more reason to try to avoid
KDE, and KDE-based software, as much as possible. Still, it sounds more
like another inductive error.
In case you missed it, *we* were talking about whether it was acceptable
to tolerate bias, and I don't think it is. You were merely the example.
Attempting to hand-wave all demands that you act ethically by simply
saying "it's unreasonable and stupid to expect me to act ethically" is
not a supportable position.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:04:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
[...]
>> >Terrible legal threat: "we can't guarntee we eill not sue".
>>
>> ...which individuals who don't have the financial resources
>> to deal with a lawsuit must take into consideration.
>
>Of course. What they shouldn't be is surprised. Noone will ever
>guarantee they will not sue anyone else.
>
>It's not a threat, it's a statement of the obvious.
The fact that it is obvious even when unstated makes the statement of it
a threat. An empty threat, I think, because they'd be hard pressed to
win unless someone *was* actually infringing on their code, but a
sufficient threat to deter competition on the API.
What was it they called making threats in order to deter competition in
a market? Oh, yea, I remember. Its "monopolization", and its a felony.
Or maybe you're right, and it wasn't a threat, but just an observation.
Maybe then its just attempted monopolization, which is only a felony.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:05:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> >produced by other vendors, and given enough time/patience you can write
>one
>> >*YOURSELF*.
>>
>> In other words "building a national phone network" is not a
>> barrier to market entry? Sorry, but those that actually make
>> those kinds of decisions have dissagreed with you for over a
>> century now.
>
>The two are incomparable; look at Linux. It was done *for free*.
No it wasn't. Millions of people have paid $50 for RedHat, and other
distros, not to mention the combined cost of development, taken on the
cuff by thousands of developers. It most certainly wasn't done "for
free".
>There are
>plenty of apps, if you can stomach the bad UI. What are the barriers to
>entry? Please describe them. Currently all you seem to be able to do is say
>"Look over there! Phone network!" and then you fold your arms smugly as if
>saying that is enough to win you a standing ovation. Where are the barriers?
Well according to Judge Jackson, we can find them in paragraphs 36
through 52 of the Findings of Fact:
"The plaintiffs also proved that the applications barrier to entry
protects Microsoft's dominant market share. Id. ¶¶ 36-52. This barrier
ensures that no Intel-compatible PC operating system other than Windows
can attract significant consumer demand, and the barrier would operate
to the same effect even if Microsoft held its prices substantially above
the competitive level for a protracted period of time."
Let's see what we find, OK?
We start off with "Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by the
same barrier that helps define the market for Intel-compatible PC
operating systems." By paragraph 39, we're already at "The large body
of applications thus reinforces demand for Windows, augmenting
Microsoft's dominant position and thereby perpetuating ISV incentives to
write applications principally for Windows. This self-reinforcing cycle
is often referred to as a 'positive feedback loop.'"
After noting some of the potentially valid reasons Microsoft might have
for its behavior, paragraph 43 ends with "Plus, while Microsoft may
spend more on platform 'evangelization,' even in relative terms, than
any other PC operating- system vendor, it is not difficult to understand
why it is worthwhile for the principal beneficiary of the applications
barrier to devote more resources to augmenting it than aspiring rivals
are willing to expend in speculative efforts to erode it."
By the mid-40s, we're into OS/2, and "Thus, although at its peak OS/2
ran approximately 2,500 applications and had 10% of the market for
Intel-compatible PC operating systems, IBM ultimately determined that
the applications barrier prevented effective competition against Windows
95."
Must I go on? How about we wrap things up. What do you think we'll
find at the end of paragraph 52?
"In short, attempting to clone the 32-bit Windows APIs is such an
expensive, uncertain undertaking that it fails to present a practical
option for a would-be competitor to Windows."
>Writing an OS requires a hell of a lot less resources than building a phone
>network. Phone systems cost trillions over hundreds of years. OS's? Maybe a
>couple of thousand. Maybe less. Maybe more. Depends on the scope.
That's what he's been saying all along, although you've missed it.
Writing an OS is not the problem involved in creating a market
alternative to Windows. The problems is that you can't compete against
an anti-competitive monopoly. You cannot point to *technical*
alternatives to Windows and insist that they prove MS isn't
monopolizing, because monopolization isn't a technical issue. They are,
indeed, part of the 'relevant market'. But Microsoft has a 90% market
share. That is enough to convict them to begin with, according to
current law. And it doesn't matter how cheap building another phone
system might be (hundreds of years?), if you have to build another phone
system in order to compete in the market for phone services, then the
phone company is a monopoly.
Its not the best example in the world, but you should still have
recognized the argument. Think harder next time.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:20:26 -0500
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8olb95$5n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No, they're buttons with pictures on them. They are not icons. Icons
> > launch applications, buttons do all sorts of different things. Are
> you
> > suggesting that any button with a picture on it should launch an
> > application?
>
>
> Icons do not necessarily launch apps. In win311 and many X wimdow
> managers, icons represent iconozed (:-) _running_ programs. Activating
> the icon (usually a double click) restores (NB, _not_ launches) the
> program. The buttons on the task bar behave much like icons.
They don't behave *ANYTHING* like Icons. Icons can be moved. Icons can be
dragged onto other icons. Icons can be double clicked to lauch
applications. Icons can recieve drop messages and launch applications.
What you're describing is how X does things, not how Windows does things.
We're talking about being consistent in a single environment, not being
consistent with other environments.
> Besides, they are the _only_merpresentation of running programs that
> have no window up., so it makes sense to be able to drag stuff straight
> on to them.
Untrue. There are other representations, for instance in TaskManager.
> I'm not suggesting that every button shopuld launch an app, it's just
> that the buttons aer the only ones I've seen that respond to this kind
> of event. It would be better if DnD worked properly, so you could drag
> stuff on to the button, rather than having that really wierd behaviour.
> It is wierd behaviour, since it is the _only_thing in windows (or
> anywhere else I've seen) that works like that.
Untrue. Lots of other things work that way. Drag an icon over a folder,
and hover. You'll see that it opens up. Drag an icon onto your Start
button and hover, you'll see that the Start menu opens up.
> > > the ones in the start bar. How else could the app be raised if
> nothing
> > > had any idea that there was an object being dragged floating above a
> > > task bar button?
> >
> > That's not a drop request, that's a mouseover request.
>
> I've never seen , much less used an app that uses mouseover requests on
> buttons except the task bar. Besoides, the task bar can respond to drop
> requests (by bringing up an error), but it won't do it properly.
Any application that has flat buttons that raise use a mouseover.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:05:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> Proprietary media encodings: Sorenson, divx, DVD.
>
>Really? Microsoft didn't invent any of those. They are not
>Microsoft-proprietary.
Microsoft controls them. They are Microsoft-proprietary, for all
intents and purposes.
>> Proprietary file formats: msword, msxcel.
>
>Documented in MSDN -- certainly, Star Office, AbiWord et al have no
>difficulty reading them.
PTTHTHTHTHH! "Documented". Ha!
>> Proprietary programming interfaces: DirectX,Win32.
>
>Mmmmmm... well, given that any OS will have its own proprietary programming
>interfaces, that's a given.
Ever heard of POSIX, sweetheart?
>> That 'owned' programming interface also restricts the cabal of
>> 3rd parties that might otherwise migrate to a new compeitor as
>> Oracle or IBM might migrate their databases to Linux.
>
>Really?
Yes, really.
[...]
>> A couple of thousand?
>>
>> Who are you trying to kid, clueless?
>
>Have you ever tried? All it takes is time.
>
>Who are you trying to kid? You just claimed that DVD, DivX and Sorenson
>encoding were MICROSOFT creations forming a barrier to entry.
No, he didn't. Read it again. He said they were proprietary media
encodings used to maintain MICROSOFT'S monopoly power. He didn't say
anything (that I can see, but I'm new to the thread) about Microsoft
*creating* them. I think we all know that Microsoft isn't capable of
creating anything, really. At least, not anything more than necessary
to maintain their monopoly.
>Oh... and which market is it a barrier to entry to? You have to define that
>too.
Why, DVD software, obviously. Is that hard to define? I don't know
what DivX and Sorenson are, but I'm a bit familiar, at least, with the
DVD issue. Not that its any different than the USB issue, or the old
Kerberos issue, or any of the other mechanisms and specifications
Microsoft has tried to control in order to restraint of trade.
So now its WinModems, WinME pricing, upgrade packages, PC-based
licensing, and USB, and DVD. That's six.
"Together, the proof of dominant market share and the existence of a
substantial barrier to effective entry create the presumption that
Microsoft enjoys monopoly power."
All you have to do is define the relevant market [X's for
Intel-compatible PCs], and each of the six are a prima facia violation
of statute. All you have to do is show evidence that Microsoft achieved
or maintained that position willfully, and its a slam-dunk conviction.
But then, I'm one of the few that see the current case as a slam-dunk
conviction, even in retrospect. But the more you wade through the text
of the decision, the more clear that becomes, and I've read it quite a
bit, lately. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:00:51 -0400
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Mading wrote:
>
> :>
> :> : So the Japanese are just going to land large forces on California?
> :> : And the American Navy is not going to interdict the supplies sent
> :> : to such Japanese troops in California?
> :>
> :> No Panama Canal yet. The US Navy would take a long time to get
> :> there in full force. (This was the main reason for building the
> :> canal in the first place. It increased the power of the Navy by
> :> decreasing it's response time to go between oceans.)
> :>
>
> : Land guys at Nicaragua, have them march to the west coast, and have
> : other ships pick them up there. Yes, the Navy would already have to
> : have ships in the Pacific, but that's cheaper than a transcontinental
> : railroad.
>
> Those ships would not be there in the Pacific. Remember we are talking
> about a scenario where someone's taken over the west coast. I was
> presuming from that that they destroyed the naval threat there too,
> since with a large functioning navy to defend the area it would be
> nearly impossible to take over the coast. I was therefore operating
> on the assumption that if the coast were already taken, the pacific
> fleet has to have been taken out already, or it has to have been very
> far away at the time. Either way it isn't available to help in the
> operation. The Naval strength all has to come from the atlantic fleet.
>
> Sea travel also has an awful lot longer route than the railroad route,
> even with the central american shortcut. Rails were just as fast as
> boats by then, and the rail route would be more direct.
Actually, the key difference would be which method would be easier to
keep the force supplied with food, etc. The railroad makes more sense,
as the railroad itself helps to transport back east more raw iron
ore for making more engines, etc.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:24:24 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8omfu1$17la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> One more point would be this:
>
> No matter how big ANY video driver for linux is, it does not exist inside
> the kernel. Thats the point.
That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any software
that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash the
computer.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
