Linux-Advocacy Digest #856, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("2 + 2")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) (Thomas Corriher)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Bob Rudolph")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("MH")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joseph T. Adams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 09:23:22 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote in message ...
>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.
You may be right. Courts often do not go beyond an issue that settles the
matter. However, it was my impression that Lessig's bias figured into the
decision. Without looking at the decision, I will accept your represention,
since I am not willing to search for it. :)
>
>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.
True. Because Lessig basically said the appeals court was right.
However, you can be sure that Jackson's pulling in Lessig, who had been
tossed by the appeals panel, was not considered a kind of affrount to the
appeals panel.
Even if the appeals panel did not get to the bias issue, bias is a very
delicate subject to courts, since the one indispensable moral basis for
courts is that they be considered to be impartial.
2 + 2
>
>--
>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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Corriher)
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: 3 Sep 2000 13:17:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], abuse@[127.0.0.1]
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000 03:42:52 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is ridiculously false. Let me repeat *ridiculously*.
> You mean ridiculously.
Correcting my spelling makes you look a little despairate.
I will check my spelling this time for those with high spelling
sensitivities.
>> Please educate us on how MS Windo~1 dynamically restructures
>> memory so that the maximum amount of memory is always
>> utilized.
> System cache memory is *discardable* under windows. Several
> algorithms are used, but generally if there is not enough
> physical memory left to allocate the memory request, Windows NT
> will do one of three things 1) *Discard* discardable memory
> segments that have not been used recently (examples of this
> would be resource data), 2) *Discard* the least recently used
> system cache pages. and 3) Page out data to the swap file.
> (generally in that order or precedence).
You still avoided answering: "How does Windo~1 utilize the
_unused_ memory?". I did not ask about how the cache is freed.
Also, there is a BIG difference between the words "utilize" and
"discard". These words are almost complete opposites. You
have actually proved my point without intending to.
In fact, your whole response just sounds like a description of
MS virtual memory. (You must have visited the "Knowledge Base")
You get a gold star for doing your homework. Nevertheless, the
MS idea of virtual memory is considered piss-poor by the
majority of those in the non-Microsoft technical community.
You can read about the details of the proper way to do memory
with industry (not Microsoft's) standards at:
http://www.cne.gmu.edu/itcore/virtualmemory/vmideas.html
Here is an excerpt from that page:
..
"Virtual memory not only allows us to have an "unlimited" amount
of fast memory, but it can easily be adapted to provide a great
degree of protection. What do we mean by protection? Each running
process has its own piece of main memory, its own address space.
We need to make sure that no renegade process can write or read
into the address space of another user process or even the
operating system. It would not be a good thing if somebody's
misbehaving computer game overwrote a program maintaining student
grades.
(Did you notice the part about protection and renegade processes?)
(continued)
Another advantage of walling of each process is for system
reliability. If one process becomes unruly, it can only damage
its own objects and not the whole system. Many machines that can
afford to allocate enough memory to hold a process's address space
often use virtual memory because protection is so important. As
you can see, unless we provide significant protection, sharing
memory will be a mixed blessing."
..
A mixed blessing indeed. Without protection a computer can easily
get "the blues" (screens that is).
>> Erik, you obviously do not understand how temporary data storage
>> (memory) works in general, and therefore, not not understand how
>> it is used in either Windows or Linux. I am not being mean here;
>> just honest. To the technical people here, who do understand,
>> your arguments make you look very stupid. You are "the emperor
>> without clothes".
>
> I love how you state this without providing a single reason why
> it's true, much less any evidence to support such a conclusion.
I did not have to provide evidence. You did. Though, I do give
you some merit this time for describing the MS Swapping/Virtual
memory management standard. I underestimated your knowledge
concerning memory storage in Windows; but I reaffirm what was
said about your Unix knowledge. It is not often that I must
admit to someone: "I underestimated you", so it is a real
compliment.
I do have to demerit you for the spelling correction though.
That gave the appearance that you did not have a counter
argument with substance. I am not claiming that you do not
have valid arguments. I am stating that spelling corrections
sometimes invalidate you more than the people you correct,
especially on the usenet.
>> What makes you look the most foolish is that you are arguing
>> about how graphical systems use memory with a developer on the
>> KDE project. (HINT: KDE is a graphical/windowing sub-system).
>I know exactly who i'm discussing this with. The message you responded to
>was my response to Steve Mading. Steve is not listed on the KDE website as
>being a KDE developer, nor does his message indicate in any way that he is.
>Robert Alsina is a KDE developer, but this message was not in response to
>him. Are YOU sure you know who you're talking about?
I skimmed in my reading. I might need to go back and double-check
exactly who does what. I admit that I may have become confused
about who said what. (Sometimes I have to hit myself in the head
to reseat all the boards that have become loose, and reboot.)
>> I think he probably has a pretty good understanding of what
>> he is talking about. You could even say that he is a master.
> I'm sure he is. That doesn't make him an expert on NT though
> (he may be, but I don't know this).
I admitted to skimming; so I shall not comment either.
>> How many windowing operating system components have you coded?
>> How many memory management sub-systems have you designed that
>> cooperate with a networked, multi-platform, windowing system?
>> We already know the answer, so you do not need to answer.
>> Would you like to argue with Linus about how kernels work
>> while you are at it?
>
> I'm not trying to tell anyone how Linux or KDE works. I'm not
> arguing about such. I'm talking about NT and how *IT* handles
> memory.
No, you did. You were making *ridiculous* and uninformed
arguments about how much memory KDE needs.
>> To put it bluntly: You are _WAY_ out of your league.
> And how would you know?
I read your postings. Reference the points above.
>> By the way, I can limit how much memory my users are allowed
>> to use on my system by simply editing the "limits.conf" file.
>> How is this done in Windo~1? I am just curious, of course. :)
>> Notice also that the file name ends with 4 characters since
>> I am allowed any file name I choose.
> You clearly have no idea how NT works, do you? Apart from the fact that
> you're confusing the VFAT filesystem of Win9x with NT, you also are not
> getting the name right. Windows is 7 characters and would not use the
> name mangling scheme you are trying to so cutely portray.
I was not really confused about the file systems for any version
of Windo~1. I was being funny about the "~" character. I think
that everyone here realizes that. Concerning the file name limits:
I am aware the some of the past file naming limitations for some
versions of Windows have been eliminated. Nevertheless, they are
still amusing when seen from a historical perspective. I am sure
that most people realize this too. You are simply selectively
misinterpreting my arguments because you are in denial about
them. You never did answer the memory configuration, or memory
utilization questions either.
--
From the desk of Thomas Corriher
The real email address is:
corriher at surfree.
com
------------------------------
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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 09:25:09 -0400
"joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8osqur$d01$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "josco01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > > >No one has a right to buy whatever they wish, one only has the
> right to
> > buy
> > > >what others choose to sell to them.
> > >
> > > I do have a right to buy what ever I wish and I exericse that
> > > right every day. I have a right to create demand and I have a right
> to a
> > > market that is free to respond to that demand.
> >
> > You do not have the right to buy whatever you wish - you only have the
> right
> > to buy what someone chooses to sell you. It's really pretty simple.
> All the
> > money on earth doesn't give you the RIGHT to buy whatever you wish,
> that
> > really can't be too hard to grasp can it?
>
> This is no more profound than a ten year old realizing rights are
> limited just as the the right to free speach is limited by laws of
> liable.
What are these laws of liable you speak of, sounds interesting, but I fear
that "libel" laws may be already addressing the problem?
>So I cannot buy things that there are laws forbidding me to buy
> but there is no law or concept limiting my right to only buying things
> that someone chooses to sell.
>
> The laws can even force a vendor to sell a product and sell a product at
> a specific price - the laws can force a vendor to provide a service or
> product. What planet are you on that makes you think otherwise?
Name a few of these laws which force someone to create, then sell a product,
and sell it at a certain price. You can omit government granted monopolies
and slavery from the list.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 09:34:45 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Said josco01 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > >On Sat, 02 Sep 2000, JS/PL wrote:
> > > > >>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>> 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >I wouldn't rely on unaccredited sites.
> > > > >
> > > > >Yes Monopolies are legal and trying to aquire one is legal if one
> > doesn't
> > > > >break the laws - including anti-trust laws.
> > > >
> > > > One cannot acquire a monopoly without breaking anti-trust laws, as
> > > > attempting to monopolize is as illegal as monopolizing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> > > The Patent System SPECIFICALLY ENDORSES legal monopolies for
innovators.
> > >
> > > Microsoft's problem is they can't innovate a hole into a wet paper
bag.
> >
> > And what have you innovated in your lifetime. I beleive this might be a
case
> > of the pot calling the kettle black.
>
> I'm working on a rifle-marksmanship device right now.
Good...here's what Microsoft has been innovating (since 1995)
http://www.patents.ibm.com/patlist?&like_assc=373780&issuedate_selected=CHEC
KED&title_selected=CHECKED&query=Assignee+=+MICROSOFT%20CORPORATION+(373780)
&minisd=1995-01-01
------------------------------
From: "Bob Rudolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 09:19:59 -0400
Reply-To: "Bob Rudolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I suppose Windows 2003 will be even *more* stable than Windows 2000,
> > eh? :)
>
> Will Windows 2003 be 13 times more stable than Windows 2000 and as a
result
> 169 times more stable than NT?
It'll be so fucking stable that all it will ever do is boot to a blue
screen....
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 09:46:53 -0400
> On a 386 or 486 with 4 MB of memory, Win95 is just as fast as Win 3.1 is.
> Win95 is *MUCH* faster than Win 3.1 if you give it a few more megs.
On a 386 with 4 mb's of ram win95 is unusable. On a 486 with same, win95
will need disk just to boot. 3x can operate with 4 and run an application or
two. Imagine that! win 3X with 8 is much snappier than 95 with 8 when
running applications. It's only when you get above 16 --32 IMHO, that 95
begins to behave acceptably. 4mb's of ram is absurd, with a 386 is
self-hate.
> We're talking Windows 95 without anything else. No IE, no FAT32,
whatever.
I would guess you're talking about any application(s) as well. That's no
good, that is no good.
I'm not a Linux zealot in any sense. I read your posts and realize that you
are quite knowledgeable on a fairly wide range of subjects. But the above is
poppy cock, pure and simple.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 14:56:42 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> [...]
> >Left to their own devices, markets correct themselves. Individual
> >companies don't stay focused long enough to stay on top long term.
>
<snip>
That was a really nice soliloquy, but you didn't come up with an actual
example
> http://www.ripon.edu/Faculty/bowenj/antitrust/stdoilnj.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! =-----
--
James A. Robertson
Senior Sales Engineer, Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[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: 3 Sep 2000 15:05:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: If there were, in fact, teachers that hate you, they can't give you a bad
: grade simply because they feel like it. If a student feels that he/she has
: been given an inaccurate grade, they can make a complaint to the school
: administration. The teacher would have to show the bad work that justified
: the grade given. If the entire administration hated the student for some
: reason so that complaints go unanswered, one has to wonder what the student
: did to get so many people on their bad side.
Expressing politically incorrect beliefs will do the trick nicely at
any state "university" around here.
Joe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
