Linux-Advocacy Digest #945, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 05:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why I hate Windows...
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: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Eric Bennett)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Simon Cooke")
More non-compliance from Microsoft (Pan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 03:42:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 00:16:29 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>>>Hu?? Donovan said no such thing. He said ignorance is not a defense for
>>>slander.
>>
>>You moron, he said I'm a sex offender, while pretending not to. How
>>stupid are you?
>
>No, I didn't. I'm not sure whether you're really this dumb, or whether
>you are using a cheap diversionary tactic to get away from the main
>point --
I'm dumb? Gary posts 'Max is a sex offender', and you don't notice it,
and you think *I'm* dumb?
>the main point being that ignorance is not a defence against libel.
The main point was to have a pretense to say "Max is a sex offender". I
though we went over that, already.
>Instead of debating this issue, you are pursuing an irrelevant line of
>argument.
This isn't a line of argument; it is the relevant truth, there is no
debate. Gary used a pretense to say "Max is a sex offender", and you're
trying to defend him.
The fact that he was doing so while chasing up a baseless charge brought
by a dishonest person in response to my statement, which was not only
true within the context I said it, but who's truth in that context was
being specifically and disingenuously denied by that same dishonest
person, is irrelevant. That is not a matter for debate, at this point.
The only topic of discussion right now is the observation of the glaring
truth that Gary used a pretense to say "Max is a sex offender."
>>>I'm sorry about that. It is really quite simple.
>>
>>I'd say you're just simple, and sorry.
>
>Well I'd say that his reading comprehension is better than yours.
And I'd say that is so obviously and patently untrue that it makes you
as dishonest as anyone on this thread, Roberto included. It doesn't
take a lot of reading comprehension to read the words "Max is a sex
offender" and notice that just about an infinite number of other
'examples' would have sufficed quite a bit better. Particularly in
light of the fact that I'm not at all happy about some pathetic little
moron playing games and being cutesy about 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! ======
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 00:32:27 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:T_lt5.8926$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8p3s7v$3jh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > in the market. The MacOS doesn't have this problem (yet) because it's
> > > "system components" are inits, which all load at runtime. Windows
needs
> a
> > > mechanism to load system components on demand.
> >
> > As Linux and unix already has? This sounds like another case of Windows
> > playing catch up with Linux.
>
> Windows has always had demand loadable drivers. It's just that some of
> those drivers are not recognized by the OS unless they are loaded at boot
> time. Whole other classes of drivers have been demand loaded from the
> start.
You now contradicting yourself.
> > > > Why does a cluttered cache and temp directory affect the stability
of
> > > > the OS? Is there something wrong with this OS?
> > >
> > > The same reason a full tmp directory can crash unix.
> >
> > Dumping the no longer needed contents of /tmp /var/tmp and/or /usr/tmp
is
> a
> > process that has been or can be automated with the use of cron on
> > Linux/unix. Is this not a case of unix being more "easy to use" than
> > Windows which requires the user to remember to do the job manually?
>
> And you don't think this can't be automated in Windows? What century do
you
> live in?
Then why did you place the responsibility to do all the storage trahs dumps
on the user?
I live in the 20th Century and I will until January 1, 2001, you?
> > Are trying you comparing utilities to kenel modules?
>
> Some are the equivelant of kernel modules, yes. Others are simply very
> poorly written and can take advantage of Win9x's leniency on memory
> protection. Make no mistake, Win9x puts performance and compatibility
ahead
> of stability (performance of 16 bit code that is). That's it's job, and
> that's why it's successful. Don't you think MS would have much rather
have
> had everyone on NT these last 7 years if such concerns were not important
to
> end-users?
A untility program is equivelant of a kernle modules? Please explain how?
> > Actually a unix box needs no maintenance to keep running. The most
> > maintenance I have had to do on most boxes is to review the logs. I
have
> > not even had to log into them to do it. A cron job runs that
periodically
> > trims the logs and emails them to me as well as submitting them for
> archival
> > storage. Another job will scan the contents of the logs and emails me a
> > priority message if any critical entries are detected.
>
> Are these boxes that the general public uses however they please?
General public? Do you mean people walking in off the street using the
machines? No.
Do you mean are these machine used for login session, shell and X by regular
uses for general work? Yes.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 03:42:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 00:19:55 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>No, I haven't accused you of being a sex offender.
>>
>>No, you said I was a sex offender.
>
>This is an outright lie.
You are a sham.
--
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 03:44:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 19:37:47 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't believe it would be that much different. GTK is similar enough
>> to Qt that a Qt programmer could start coding immediately if they had
>> the GTK docs in front of them.
>
>And a wrapper library to map or otherwise handle the difference between Qt
>and GTK could be used to speed the initial conversion of programs dependent
>on Qt to GTK. After that the programmers could perform the final conversion
>at their leisure.
'Could' seems an awfully big stretch, TBH. We're supposed to be
considering market realities, not theoretical capabilities.
--
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: 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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 03:45:14 -0400
In article <8p2jue$23d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 + 2"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> III Or Gain New Monopoly Improperly.
>
> A. Markets/Products are Separate
>
> 1. No Tech Tying-negates this element since there is no separate
> Product/Market
>
> B. Products are Tied--reduced "hurdle"; monopoly along with separate
> markets/products are sufficient; so called per se rule
>
> C. Prevent Competition--not required; this is the so-called "rule of
> reason"
>
> I see the rule of reason analysis thrown in by the judge in the same way
> that the DoJ/Boies threw in all the extra allegations, like
> RealAudio/RealPlayer.
>
> It's material that is not actual needed, but paints the accused in a bad
> light with the hopes that this will help turn the tide on the relevant
> issue, ie tech tying.
But didn't Jackson say the markets are separate? As long as that holds,
to give Microsoft the benefit of a rule of reason analysis could be seen
as overly generous given existing per se precedents.
And where tying is concerned, you don't even have to have a market
presence that rises to the level of monopoly for the per se rule to
apply you. See Fortner Enterprises v. U.S. Steel:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=394&invol=495
=====
These decisions rejecting the need for proof of truly dominant power
over the tying product have all been based on a recognition that because
tying arrangements generally serve no legitimate business purpose that
cannot be achieved in some less restrictive way, the presence of any
appreciable restraint on competition provides a sufficient reason for
invalidating the tie. Such appreciable restraint results whenever the
seller can exert some power over some of the buyers in the market, even
if his power is not complete over them and over all other buyers in the
market. In fact, complete dominance throughout the market, the concept
that the District Court apparently had in mind, would never exist even
under a pure monopoly. Market power is usually stated to be the ability
of a single seller to raise price and restrict output, for reduced
output is the almost inevitable result of higher prices. Even a complete
monopolist can seldom raise his price without losing some sales; many
buyers will cease to buy the product, or buy less, as the price rises.
Market power is therefore a source of serious concern for essentially
the same reason, regardless of whether the seller has the greatest
economic power possible or merely some lesser degree of appreciable
economic power. In both instances, despite the freedom of some or many
buyers from the seller's power, other buyers - whether few or many,
whether scattered throughout the market or part of some group within the
market - can be forced to accept the higher price because of their
stronger preferences for the product, and the seller could therefore
choose instead to force them to accept a tying arrangement that would
prevent free competition for their patronage in the market for the tied
product. Accordingly, the proper focus of concern is whether the seller
has the power to raise prices, or impose other burdensome terms such as
a tie-in, with respect to any appreciable number of buyers within the
market.
=====
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
http://play.rbn.com/?url=swave/abc/g2demand/000904bush.rm&proto=rtsp
------------------------------
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 03:48:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[...]OWL was cloned by a library named xOWL
>is available to support programming X programs written in C++ that is almost
>source code identical to MS Windows programs using OWL. The same was done
>with MFC twice, but Microsoft crushed both efforts of cloning MFC.
How? When? Where? Clues?
--
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: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:50:23 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>
> >It is trivial - I learned to write basic VBscripts in about an hour.
Doing
> >the registry changes I suggested is a pretty basic feature of WSH, and is
> >trivial.
>
> Microsoft's own SMS can't even get it to work reliably.
Can't get what to work reliably - WSH?
>You really do
> sound like you're just practicing up on your astroturfing skills for
> your big interview with Microsoft next week, or something, Stuart.
Never worked for Microsoft, never will - I'm not the right sort of person
for Microsoft. I can tell just be seeing their employees.
>Just
> how much experience do you have in networking. More than a year, maybe?
Five...
>
> [...]
> >> This is why people claim you a merely SHILLING for MS because your
> >> responses are not intelligent answers to the problem given to you,
> >> but text-book, knee-jerk reactions.
> >
> >Have you read or thought about any of the answers I've given. I've
merely
> >answered questions posed, offered valid *real-world* solutions. If you
> >don't like it, take a hike.
>
> Buddy, your cluelessness sure is showing. We have *all* read the
> answers you've given. And we *all* recognize them as worthless
> Microsoft astroturfing. You have literally learned your hand-waving
> from a guidebook, there is no doubt about it.
It's clear that it's not really worth continuing to discuss this with you.
Any answer that misses your world view is handwaving and guidebook
knowledge. See ya...
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:52:03 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>
> >The benefit -
> >a) Windows 2000 AD works...
> >b) I don't have to fight Unix admins
> >c) I'm in control of my DNS structure
> >d) Unix boys are happy
>
> a) Anything can 'work', that doesn't make it functional
> b) You've just screwed up the corporate DNS
Funny - Internet browsing works just fine. If DNS was screwed, it wouldn't.
> c) You're in control of WINS, if you're lucky
And the Win2K DNS.
> d) Joel Kline is happy (but not about AD)
>
Good for Joel
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 04:14:32 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8p012v$jjs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Now we fired up the FTP client, CuteFTP 2.6 in Windows and Igloo-FTP in
> > Linux. We connected to a local FTP site where RH is mirrored and
> > started a download.
> >
> > After one hour the downloads were:
> >
> > Linux - 18MB
> > Windows - 6.5MB
> >
> > After two hours, the accumalated total was (and we stopped here):
> >
> > Linux - 32MB
> > Windows - 14MB
>
> This should be a red blinking neon sign here that something is wrong with
> your tests. If you could honestly benchmark times, then your two hour time
> should be exactly twice the time of your one hour time on both systems.
> But, since the Windows 2 hour time is more than twice, and the Linux 2 hour
> time is less than twice, clearly these are not anywhere near "the same".
>
I have observed the SAME behavior with 2 virtually identical machines:
Same processor (AMD K-2/500)
Same motherboard
Same Ethernet card (NDC 10/100 Fast Ethernet PCI MX987x5)
Memory: Suse Linux 6.4 256Mb Lose98 292Mb (Note: windows has MORE
memory)
Swap space: Suse Linux 128 Mb Lose98 300Mb
> Secondly, you should really be using a CLI based ftp program, like the
> built-in FTP of both systems. There is simply way too much going on with
> CuteFTP to know if the issue is related to the FTP client or the stack.
Netscape 4.73 on both machines.
The Linux machine ALWAYS wins.
--
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: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 08:23:51 GMT
"Jon Skeet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MPG.141ffc82721444c98a641@news...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > I'd also be interested to know if NT/W2k has anything comparable to
> > > > 4.4BSD's sysctl, that is a way to drastically reconfigure a running
> > > > system's kernel on the fly without reboot or other interruption.
> > > >
> > > Or the Linux ProcFS which also alows on the fly kernel reconfiguration
> >
> > Why would it need to? You can't recompile the kernel for NT/W2k.
> >
> > Whether it exists at all (used at MS for on-the-fly development work) is
> > another matter -- they're the only people who'd ever use that.
>
> You think that just because a kernel can't be recompiled, you shouldn't
> be able to reconfigure it? What rot! Not all machines are used in the
> same way - being able to reconfigure things like socket timeouts, network
> connection limitations etc is vital for heavily-loaded servers.
I wouldn't call that reconfiguration... in the post I was replying to, I was
assuming it was something a lot heftier -- not just changing a few variables
on the fly.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: More non-compliance from Microsoft
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 01:30:24 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was just testing html mail in hotmail and found that an html mail with
www.foo.com
translates to:
http://64.4.30.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=cf207008bebe7174da52aedfa32300a4&lat=968228702&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2efoo%2ecom
when you run it through Hotmail. On default account setup, this may
result in a failure to open the desired document ( and did so during my
testing ). As if I needed another reason to dislike micros~1.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
