Linux-Advocacy Digest #873, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 22:50:34 -0400
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> uhu? and...again, whats your point?
That, per most females, you are nothing other than a lying bitch.
>
> /IL
>
> > Using Linux's SCSI emulation for an IDE device has now been called
> cheating.
> >
> > Linux in with an X configuration that fits comfortably in 16M of RAM hav
> > been called cheating.
> >
> > Linux on PC hardware too "underpowered" for Windows anymore has been
> called
> > cheating.
> >
> > Linux on a non-PC hardware that Windows can not work on has been called
> > cheating.
> >
> > Using unix software that was not designed for Linux has been called
> > cheating.
> >
> > Using cron, at, or batch jobs has been called cheating.
> >
> > Running a headless host has been called cheating.
> >
> > Not loading X on a dedicated server has been called cheating.
> >
> > Using the Linux's IP packet filtering firewall instead of an external
> > firewall has been called cheating.
> >
> > Taking advantage of I/O redirection to perform complex tasks with simple
> > programs without oversight of the user has been called cheating.
> >
> > Taking advantage of virtual consoles or multiple desktops has been called
> > cheating.
> >
> > Why IS any of this cheating?
> >
> > Does anyone honestly believe if Windows could do all of these thing and
> > Linux could not, then the winvocates would not consider it cheating?
> >
> >
> >
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 22:51:01 -0400
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> Got ya' there didnt i?
Translation: Lying bitch got caught in her own lies.
>
> /IL
>
> > AFAIK, ATAPI is a SCSI lookalike, so why not run it as such?
> >
> > Kent
> > --
> > What was your username?
> > <Clicketyclick> - B.O.F.H
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:12:31 +1000
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It appears that on Sat, 2 Sep 2000 14:53:54 +1000, in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8opt09$2ta$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Yes, it's possible, but it's tedious to switch between them. Most people
> >I've observed using *nix boxes don't do this, they just fire up xterms
(or a
> >variant thereof) - it's just easier.
>
> "Tedious?" You're joking, right?
Not at all. Switching between VTs, especially if one of them is running X,
is not as easy as using Xterms on a decent WM (ie one that has a hotkey like
Alt+TAB). Plus in X you get the benefit of better fonts and higher
resolutions.
> VCs are a lot easier to switch between than Xterms.
>
> The usual reason to start X is to run something like Netscape or the
> GIMP that requires it.
The main reason to start X is because multitasking from a GUI is easier than
multitasking from a commandline. Even when you've got VTs.
> >The point is, for the vast majoruty of users, an X crash is just as bad
as
> >an OS crash.
> >
> >> > 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.
> >
> >No, because I can't afford UPSes. It's not exactly mission critical
data,
> >just my home machines.
> >
>
> Take some advice, budget yourself a UPS as top priority. Your reports
> are making a lot more sense to me in that light. I also have a poor
> power supply, and I've had hardware damaged by it before. The damage
> can be subtle - with a damaged processor I was able to boot into
> windows fine (although there were some strange bugs in certain
> programs, in particular compressed files starting showing up as
> corrupt when they weren't) whereas linux locked while trying to
> decompress the kernel. It drove me nuts for a bit, until I isolated
> the problem, everything worked fine again (if very slowly) when I
> disabled the onboard cache. Replacing the CPU 'fixed' all the apparent
> software problems. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you have some
> hardware problems, that would explain your symptoms to a T. It doesn't
> take many processors to pay for a UPS.
I have multiple surge suppressors and tripswitches. I'm unaware of any way
a loss of power equivalent to turning a machine on and off would damage
decent hardware.
In any event, my experiences are shared by friends with similar spreads of
hardware and software, even in better environments. Some have better
stability with Linux, some with Windows (due, obviously, to hardware
differences). None would seriously argue one was more stable than the
other.
There are no problems with my hardware. NT would barf real quick if there
was, it's quite sensitive to hardware problems.
> Linux is a lot more picky about hardware integrity than Windows.
Erm, one of the commonly stated advantages of Linux over Windows
(particularly NT) is that it is _less_ picky about hardware. Better get
your story straight :).
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 22:52:19 -0400
Simon Cooke wrote:
>
> "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ou3ls$bjadc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There is (or at least was) a similar bug in frontpage - saving a temporary
> > webpage to the root of a drive and then deleting temporary webpage would
> > delete every file on the drive without any warnings being displayed, it
> was
> > reported as being the worst software bug ever but microsoft seem to have
> > hushed it up as usual.
>
> It warned you that doing that would be stupid, and warned you that deleting
> it would be stupid, and then deleted it.
>
> Where's the lack of warnings?
Why should deleting a root-level *FILE* fuck up the ENTIRE FILESYSTEM.
This is indicative of some INCREDIBLY, SERIOUSLY bad fucking
programming.
>
> It wasn't hushed up -- it was a PEBKAC bug. And there *WERE* warnings.
>
> Simon
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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 (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:02:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >If the basis of your argument is that I'm anonymous, I'm afraid
>> >you're lack of awareness is showing. I'm hardly anonymous. My
>> >last name and the city I'm from are in my email address. I'm
>> >less anonymous than you.
>>
>> All the more reason not to use a childish 'handle'. It inhibits serious
>> discussion, honestly. Subtly, but it does.
>
>At this point, I'll have to accuse you of lack of sincerity
>in your post where you indicated you desired effective
>communication. Otherwise, I wouldn't expect you to fall into
>name calling. And you call *me* childish. Sheesh.
I did not call you childish. I called the use of a handle childish.
I've done childish things; I don't consider myself a childish person.
Don't be so jumpy. I'll tell you right now, you might as well just
abandon your desire to question my sincerity. I really am just as silly
as I sound; I do not post with any pretensions whatsoever.
>Furthermore, you refered to my activities as "ankle biting,"
>but since you haven't been paying attention, I feel I should
>point out that what I'm doing is objecting to your ABUSE.
>
>KNOCK IT OFF!
'K.
>> >It is not my responsibility to refute what he says; that's not
>> >how debate works. One does not put the responsibility of proving
>> >a negative to the other party.
>>
>> In fact, I think that is how debate works.
>
>You are mistaken.
I'm not going to pull out any debate class handbooks, because I never
took debate class, but yes, that is how debate works. He presents his
argument, and you present yours. You also attempt to refute each
other's, and the timing of all this varies. But when he presents a fact
"there are x", you can provide a dispute to that, but not an argument
from ignorance. Clearly, the situation had progressed beyond that
point.
>> He was using a fact to support his argument.
>
>When the other side calls a "fact" (sic) into question, it is the
>responsibility of the profferor of the fact to substantiate it.
That depends on your level of rigor. I'm not one to discount Usenet
debate, but he did substantiate it; he knew a book on the subject
existed. That might not have been enough substantiation for you, but if
it wasn't, you can either use the fact that his substantiation was so
weak to provide a readily refuting fact (find a book, quote, or
reference disputing it) or not. You can even simply tell him "I don't
think that's enough substantiation", but a suggestion that the fact is
not true because you have not been convinced of it is an argument from
ignorance. Please forgive the lecture. I'm just trying to explain
myself.
>> been on him to provide some substantiation to his fact. Instead, you
>> used an argument from ignorance, by saying that if he can't provide a
>> real case, there cannot be any such cases.
>
>No. I did not. You inferred it.
You, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >If you truly understand this to be true, you can describe,
> >in simple English, the simple accounting to make this happen.
I'll agree that the fact it was an argument from ignorance was an
inference; my description was an abstract reference to the underlying
fallacy of that argument, not a representation of your words.
All that having been said, its an argument from ignorance.
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: 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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:03:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"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.
>
>That was a really nice soliloquy, but you didn't come up with an actual
>example
Of course I didn't come up with an actual example; you can't see an
actual example of something that doesn't happen. Every company that has
ever made more profit than it is making now is an example.
--
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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 03:07:39 GMT
"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I'm not implying _ALL_ (or most, for that matter) of the Americans are
> stupid, I'm implying they're being willingly ignorant of the state of
> the world address.
Who said they're being ignorant. Many Americans are well aware of the
BT plight and are indifferent because, as I said in another post, you've
dug your own hole and now you're angry at us because we've got a better
situation. Grass is greener, I suppose.
Ignorance and indifference are two seperate things. We're not about
to grind to a halt and wait for you to catch up to late-20th century
level technology just so you don't think we have "attitudes" anymore.
> You know, there's an ancient Japanese proverb that
> says,
<SNIP>
Spare me the "grasshopper" stuff. You're no more my Sensai than
Bill Clinton is.
> Think about it for a moment, Chad. Do you happen to sense a shade of
> wisdom in it? Could you apply a tiny fragment of it to your statement?
So you want us to give you fishing poles? You want us to give you hand
outs?
You Brits seem so high and mighty on your civility, culture and
fortitude, how come you haven't mangaged to work yourself out of this
situation. Well, when it comes to facism, we'll gladly help you out,
but when it comes to money, it's a different ball-game.
Your telco situation is your own problem, not ours.
> >Look, I can understand if you're sore because you got left in
> >the 20th century, but don't try to blame it on us.
>
> I didn't get left anywhere I wouldn't want to stay, I'm not
> complaining about my situation anyway - the ban on exporting software
> that used strong cryptography had long before been lifted for my
> country. Besides, the mere assumption of everything non-American being
> plain obsoleted 20th century crap tells us all a great deal about your
> attitude, so I doubt that bothering myself any further would be in
> place.
Would you guys please stick to one topic-line. You have about 3
issues going on in this one post and you keep chastizing me for talking
about the others when you youself are doing it.
Nigel made two points:
- That America was somehow descriminating against the rest of the world
by having a strong economy and good RAM prices and by having 50MB
downloads that somehow exclude our telco-challenged friends across the
pond
- The America is descriminating by not allowing strong encryption exporting.
I've already addressed the first hogwash point, now onto the second.
They've lifted some of the restrictions but again, the fact that Britian
has lifted their restrictions doesn't really mean diddly because they
don't have much to protect. The Software industry in the U.K. is slow
at best, stifled at worse (see BT plight as a related effect).
Lifting the restriction in the US means a whole lot more because we
have many softwares that serve much more critical purposes and could be
used in very bad ways. Of course you know this already, I'm explaining
the obvious, right? Appearently not as you have brought up this dicussion.
Besides, what are you all waiting on America for software for. Why
don't you get things going and right your own and tell us to bugger off.
It's certainly better than you sitting here bitching and moaning about
how the world isn't fair.
-Chad
------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:09:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Reality is a point of view wrote:
>> +---- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (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
>> +----
>>
>> OBJS?
>That's called a correction. The company was stupid, and died
Yes, that's one.
--
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:11:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Why do you love Microsoft so much that you CHOOSE to use their products[...]
Why do you assume I CHOOSE to use their products, just because I use
their products? Are you vaguely aware of...
Ah, forget it.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
