Linux-Advocacy Digest #834, Volume #28 Sat, 2 Sep 00 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (fungus)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (abraxas)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Eric Bennett)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Dave Livesay)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 14:39:12 GMT
Dave Livesay wrote:
>
> but still, it didn't fill me with confidence in the filing system.
While we're on the subject of NTFS, I'd just like to go back to
something I discovered a while ago which nobody believed at
the time. About two weeks ago I figured out how to reproduce
it perfectly so you can all try it for yourselves.
Let's go back a few months...
<wavy lines>
I posted here that something I did to my NT setup meant that
whenever I did an "empty recycle bin" it deleted all the files
on drive C of my machine.
For reference I have a dual boot machine with Windows 95
on drive C and Windows NT on drive E. All partitions are
normal FAT partitions.
<back to the present>
I've been using Windows 95 backup to make backup copies
of partition E. I managed to screw up Windows NT somehow
so I was forced to restore the partition from the backup.
Everything seems to be ok, the restore works, all the files
appear normally, Windows NT boots up just fine after being
restored.
Then I delete some files somewhere and get round to doing
and "empty recycle bin". The dialog appears as normal but
if you look closely you'll filenames which begin with
c:\windows\...
Yep, Windows NT is happily deleting every file on partition C.
I've reproduced it several times now, the problem definitely
isn't a figment of my imagination.
I've even found a solution to it - boot the machine from a
DOS floppy and delete the "recycled" folder from the root of
every drive on the machine.
Just how screwed up would a file system design have to be
to do this?
How on earth can a recycle bin on one drive (I reformatted
and restored drive E) possibly be linked to every file on
a completely different drive (ie. drive C)?
This is an "enterprise" class business operating system, or
so we're told....
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 11:30:14 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Curtis Bass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Just because something is "common" it certainly doesn't follow that
it's
> >> "correct."
> >>
> >> No, Max tends to use URLs and references to precedents and cases to
back
> >> up his position. What do you use?
> >>
> >> Besides common wisdom, that is.
> >
> >Unfortunately, much of his "reference" work consists of ignoring the
> >actual words ivolved and insisting on his own definitions. His absolute
> >refusal to understand that it is not illegal to be a monopoly (in and of
> >itself) is just one of the gaping holes in his arguments.
>
> All I want to know is, if its illegal to *monopolize*, and its illegal
> to *attempt to monopolize*, just how is it legal to have a monopoly?
Read up on the subject Max
Monopolies
http://www.capitalism.org/capitalism/faq/monopolies.htm
Antiu-Trust
http://www.capitalism.org/capitalism/faq/antitrust.htm.
you might find the part about Microsoft especially helpfull:
<quote>
Regarding the Microsoft case, don't consumers have a right to Windows
without Explorer? Does not Microsoft's bundling of their products (i.e.
Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Windows) into one package disrupt
a person's right to only have to pay for products he wishes to buy?
No one has a right to buy whatever they wish, one only has the right to buy
what others choose to sell to them. The terms of any trade must be agreeable
to the buyer and the seller, or a sale does not take place. If you don't
like Microsoft's terms, then you are free to go somewhere else (like I did
when I bought an Apple Macintosh and a UNIX server).
There is no right to force Microsoft to create, or sell, a product called
"Windows without Explorer" if Microsoft does not want to. The key right in
this case is the right to property--which is a legitimate right. The
property rights to Windows and Explorer belongs solely to Microsoft and not
to potential buyers, and certainly not to the U.S. Department of Justice.
That Microsoft does not want to sell the product "Windows without Explorer"
does not violate your rights one iota. There is no such thing as your right
to Microsoft's property. There is only the right to buy products that others
wish to sell to you. If they don't wish to sell you them in the first place,
then you have no right to buy them.
</quote>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 08:25:32 -0400
Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> >Chad Irby wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Chad Irby wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > It's funny how many people forget *why* things were so bad during
>> >> > > Carter's Presidency.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
>> >> >
>> >> > ...Democrat...
>> >>
>> >> Democrat and Republican. Five years of Johnson, five years of Nixon.
>> >>
>>
>> >Johnson got us IN
>> >Nixon got us OUT.
>>
>> >Spot the difference.
>>
>> The Eisenhower - Nixon administration got us in. -- To say otherwise, is to
>> say that King George didn't have anything to do with the American revolution.
>>
>> Nixon didn't end the war and didn't intend to. -- We left when the congress
>> cut off funds to continue the war -- and we have nixons tapes to prove the
>> point.
>Kennedy wanted to get us out (and there are tapes to prove THAT, too), but
>LBJ decided to insert 500,000 men instead.
The story is not this simple and Johnson didn't send troops alone. The
Congress not only authorized it (which in the context of the times was
essentially an order), but the congress went further. When they were asked by
LBJ to rescind the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and openly debate it before the
people -- the congressional leaders on both sides refused.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 11:43:14 -0400
"fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >
> > Anyone who bought a PC back in the days of microsoft's old OEM license
where
> > the OEM paid microsoft for every machine sold even if the hard-drive is
> > blank in theory already has a licence to run windows and should be
entitled
> > to install the upgrade even if they have never previously actually had
an
> > install CD for the product.
>
>
> Yep.
>
> This leads to the situation (like in this very room) where
> there are more legal Windows licenses than there are computers
> running Windows.
>
>
> If that ain't a ripoff monopoly then I really don't know
> what is...
Then maybe you should read about it, this is a case of false memory,
Microsoft never exclusively sold per processor licenses to oem's. Some oems
went for that particular deal, but none were ever forced to do it, it was
one of three options OEM's could choose to negotiate.
<quote>
Microsoft began offering per processor licenses at some point in the late
1980s at the request of OEMs who wanted to simplify the administration of
their per system licenses. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 96-97; Hosogi
Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 82; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at
103-07.) Because OEMs generally change microprocessors much less frequently
than they change other components of their systems, a per processor license
decreased the number of contract amendments that had been necessary under a
per system license due to system changes. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at
96-97; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 103-06.)
</quote>
http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/caldera/licensing.asp
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 11:55:28 -0400
In <8opp9v$t57$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/02/00
at 12:52 PM, "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:39b06554$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>>Max arguing from a position of research is a very rare thing. This
>>>anti-trust discussion he is in is the first time I've ever seen it, and is
>>>fueled more by his irrational hatred of Microsoft rather than any inherent
>>>character traits. That doesn't stop him drawing just plain wrong
>>>conclusions, however.
>>
>>
>>
>>NO the problem is YOUR constant M$ cheerleading pea brain that can't see
>how
>I don't "cheerlead". I post my opinions about some topics and I advocate NT.
>>that you are squirming around with a wish that M$ will get away with
>breaking
>>the law.
>Not in the least. I really couldn't care whether they've broken the law,
>since I consider the specific law to be wrong, and the law in general to be a
>joke.
>Whether Microsoft, as a company, live or die from this I really couldn't care
>about - as far as I'm concerned they're just another corporation.
Right now you're squirming around trying not to give an honest answer. What
you have said in-between your words is that you are either abnormal since you
reject the idea -- that has been accepted by generation after generation of
Americans, and the most learned people we have in all these generations --
that no one man will be permitted to economically control any segment of
society -- or you are here planting lies for billy boy.
Now you can try and claim that you're on a quest for some ideal (which does
not exist since the people the law is aimed are not in any way altruistic
enough to not run over others when the chance presents itself), or that you
are not here an unethical M$ paid troll -- but then we are left with one of
two logical choices; either you are complete idiot or a liar.
>> -- Do you get paid to come here with drivel, or is your lack of life
>>that brings you here?
>I might ask you the same question.
Trying to point away from your own lack of ethics and brains?
>Glad to see you bring up the good ol' "they must be getting paid" line again
>- it's getting to be as reliable as Godwin.
The truth is that you never ever answered this question -- so I have to
conclude that you are not only an M$ owned troll, but don't have enough
backbone to even admit it.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 11:50:06 -0400
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/02/00
at 12:40 PM, "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In article <39b06554$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>
>> >Max arguing from a position of research is a very rare thing. This
>> >anti-trust discussion he is in is the first time I've ever seen it, and
>> >is
>> >fueled more by his irrational hatred of Microsoft rather than any
>> >inherent
>> >character traits. That doesn't stop him drawing just plain wrong
>> >conclusions, however.
>>
>>
>> NO the problem is YOUR constant M$ cheerleading pea brain that can't see
>> how
>> that you are squirming around with a wish that M$ will get away with
>> breaking
>> the law.
>I think it's only fair to point out that Max has been nearly universally
>flamed by both Mac advocates and Windows advocates because he posts what is
>probably the worst drivel on this group -- ever (sorry EdLOSE, you've been
>replaced).
I've been replaced? Listen up you asshole, I've seen some pretty heavy
drivel here, but you're largely ignored because they are about as wacko as
anything, anywhere by anyone. The truth is that you and the Chris the troll
have some wacked out, off the wall ideas that no one with any stature in this
society, or anyone accepted as normal would think of as coming from a normal
person.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 2 Sep 2000 16:48:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>Can you demonstrate the instability of X as a result of the above assertion?
>
> The X server has the full run of the system by necessity. Any
> stupid thing that root could do to crash a Unix box, so could
> an X Server. This is not a very controversial sort of thing.
>
I understand this, which is why ive never said "it is impossible", but instead
"I have never seen it". Can you give an example of netscape in particular
peeing all over X enough to dump the entire system?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 16:51:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> All I want to know is, if its illegal to *monopolize*, and its illegal
> to *attempt to monopolize*, just how is it legal to have a monopoly?
Because even though they have the same root and derivation, they have
different meanings in a legal sense.
We've explained it to you a good fifteen or twenty times, but you just
don't seem to have the mental flexibility to understand it.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:02:21 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:46:04 -0400,
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >OK, the South is devastated. Rather than help it rebuild, the government
> >spends money on a transcontinental railroad.
> >The painful political consequences I meant were the Jim Crow laws, not
> >the threat of another secession.
> >
>
> So now your are blaming Jim Crow Laws on the transcontinental
> railroad?? Why should the settlers in the West be forced to live in
> the Dark Ages so that someone's (your?) lazy asshole ancestors
> wouldn't have as much phoney justification to keep their *lazy*
> *asshole* Dark Ages tradition of exploiting another race??
Maybe the South deserved what it got, maybe it didn't,
but if you refuse to consider alternative uses of the
resources employed in building the railroad, then you
aren't doing economics.
>
>
> >History threads don't fare too badly in c.o.l.a.,
>
> Not to badly for people like you who want to rewrite it.
Yeah, right.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:08:09 -0400
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> : 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.
And who could have taken over the entire West Coast at that time?
Japan? Just after the overthrow of the shogunate and the
reestablishment of the emperor (1868)? no.
Britain? The British didn't war with the US during the Civil War.
Were they going to the fight then? No.
So who was threatening the West Coast?
> I was
> presuming from that that they destroyed the naval threat there too,
Who? How?
>
> since with a large functioning navy to defend the area it would be
> nearly impossible to take over the coast.
And "they" could have done this?
> 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.
Yes, but who could have taken it out?
> 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.
True, but did the US need that speed?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:27:44 -0400
In article <39b121af$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/02/00
> at 12:40 PM, "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >In article <39b06554$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Max arguing from a position of research is a very rare thing. This
> >> >anti-trust discussion he is in is the first time I've ever seen it,
> >> >and
> >> >is
> >> >fueled more by his irrational hatred of Microsoft rather than any
> >> >inherent
> >> >character traits. That doesn't stop him drawing just plain wrong
> >> >conclusions, however.
> >>
> >>
> >> NO the problem is YOUR constant M$ cheerleading pea brain that can't
> >> see
> >> how
> >> that you are squirming around with a wish that M$ will get away with
> >> breaking
> >> the law.
>
> >I think it's only fair to point out that Max has been nearly universally
> >flamed by both Mac advocates and Windows advocates because he posts what
> > is
> >probably the worst drivel on this group -- ever (sorry EdLOSE, you've
> >been
> >replaced).
>
>
> I've been replaced? Listen up you asshole, I've seen some pretty heavy
> drivel here, but you're largely ignored because they are about as wacko
> as
> anything, anywhere by anyone.
He wasn't talking about you. He was talking about Edwin Thorne, aka
"EdWIN".
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
If I return people's greetings, I do so only to give them their greeting back.
-Karl Kraus
------------------------------
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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:30:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> According to the current legal precedent as I read it, Apple would not
>> have a claim should someone reverse engineer their ROMs in order to
>> produce Mac clone computers. This disassembly (though possibly not
>> direct decompiling) would probably be covered by the copyright issues
>> discussed in Vault v. Quaid and Sega v. Accolade, allowing for anyone
>> who has a reasonable justification for reverse engineering and even
>> copying software (whether in ROM or disk file) in order to compete on
>> production of a non-protected work (the Mac 'platform').
>
>This is all moot anyway; MacOS X does not use ROMs anymore.
If you'll excuse me, Craig, that's a silly thing to say. A new version
of something coming out doesn't make everything else in the universe
"moot". I know you meant in relation to ROM copying/cloning, and all,
but the whole point is that it doesn't matter whether software is in ROM
or on disk; its all still just software.
You really should read this article from Brian Dickerson, a columnist
for the Detroit Free Press.
http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dicker30_20000830.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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 17:15:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:00:00 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>These types of things are not usually a hacking of the site itself
so much
> >>as a hacking of the DNS entries. We would have read about any such
major
> >>hack, so it was likely a DNS hack.
> >>
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ol2rq$n5o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> Tried to access Hotmail from 0900 to 1000 SA Time - got redirected
to a
> >>> porn site. Did anybody else pick this up?
> >
> >In case you're not aware, 'fkddan', the fact that it is a "DNS" hack
may
> >mean it was limited to people who tried to access Hotmail to your
ISP's
> >network. According to the DNS system, your dialed in from "mweb", in
> >New Zealand. It might be your ISP, or it might have been all of New
> >Zealand. But since you posted your message on the 28th (even though
it
> >didn't show up on my server until the 31st, and Erik also responded
on
> >the 31st), he's probably right that if it had been a large-scale
hack,
> >it might probably have made the news.
> >
> >I say "might probably" because the DNS system is, in many ways, the
> >"achilles's heel" of the Internet, and it wouldn't surprise me if
news
> >of a hack were somewhat muted, if not suppressed, so as not to seem
to
> >be inciting unrest by causing the public to become concerned about
the
> >danger.
>
> Well maybe they better be concerned, here's another DNS hacked URL
> Lycos FTP search.
> http://ftpsearch.com/
> Isn't that another recently converted to windoze NT 2000 site?
>
> Am I seeing a pattern here?
>
I tested the link on 2 Sept around 19:10 (GMT+2). As you said... Another
one similar to hotmail.
Now I wonder - how easy is it really to hack DNS? This is also now a
major concern for me regarding e-commerce sites. Say you mirror a
smallish e-commerce site and transfer all traffic to this 'new' site
with the DNS hack. Users will purchase whatever they do under the
impression they are really doing the purchase on the right site.
Meanwhile some criminal is collecting card details.
Obviously this is a real threat.
Is there any way to determine the platforms involved with DNS,
especially the hacked ones??? This really is not my area, but I'm
interested now...
Cheers.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:31:17 -0400
In article <8oqrim$tr7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 + 2"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually Judge Jackson was so concerned about the "tech tying" issue that
> he
> brought in Lawence Lessig, the "master" rejected by the appeal court for
> bias, to prepare a brief on the specific issue (a nice little middle
> finger
> to the appeals court :) ).
Lessig was not rejected for bias. The appeals court did not reject
Lessig personally, they rejected the idea that a special master--any
special master--was necessary. They never bothered to evaluate
Microsoft's claims of bias.
And in fact when Lessig submitted his analysis in the current case,
Microsoft's official public response was actually somewhat positivie
about what Lessig wrote.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
If I return people's greetings, I do so only to give them their greeting back.
-Karl Kraus
------------------------------
From: Dave Livesay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:34:38 -0400
fungus wrote:
>
> Just how screwed up would a file system design have to be
> to do this?
I've noticed similar things. I used to have an NT server that I used for
development and testing, and once in a while when I went to move a
subdirectory from one directory to another on the same drive I'd get
these warnings asking me if I was sure I wanted to delete some file
because it was a system file. This scared the crap out of me, so of
course I said no, but eventually I got duplicate folders all over the
place and things stopped working right and I had to reinstall and start over.
I'm used to using Macs, where you can move folders wherever you want
(except the special folders in the System folder), and aliases don't
break when you do it, but on NT, it seems like the system doesn't really
move things so much as copy and delete them, so all these warnings go
off, and then the "shortcuts" in the moved folder and shortcuts that
point to the moved folder all stop working.
Anyway, that server ended up in a very sorry state where I'd hear the
hard drive running almost constantly for no apparent reason, and it
would spontaneously blue screen a couple times a day even when no one
was hitting the server or anything. I thought for sure it must have a
virus, but I never was able to detect one. I finally concluded it was
haunted, and reformatted the drive and installed Red Hat Linux on it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 22:52:12 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 20:34:55 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8oprjt$dab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> On a desktop unix box, you'll most likely be using X, even if just to have
>a
>> dozen XTerms open. Kill X, and everything goes with it. The difference
>> between this and having The whole OS crash is largely semantic.
>
For a standalone workstation, maybe, not for a system that is either a
server, or is doing distributed processing.
>If all you want is a number of xterm running, all you need to do is don't
>run X and take advantage of your box's VC's. -- Less overhead, faster
>response, and perhaps better security.
>
>> I might add that NT has IME recovered a lot more gracefully from sudden
>> power outages (power is flaky around here) than Linux. I've never lost an
>> NTFS filesystem, I've lost several ext2 ones.
>
>Are you using UPS with you host monitoring and auto shutdown when the power
>is off too long? I the environment that you describe it is mandatory
>reguardless of the OS.
>
>
>
>
Or you could switch to ReiserFS or another journaling fs and get the benefits
of linux stability and a real journaling FS.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
