Linux-Advocacy Digest #953, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 13:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Max finally gets plonked (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Computer and memory (Paul E. Larson)
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (Paul E. Larson)
Re: iMacs With iTitude (Edwin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("2 + 2")
Re: Mandrake users: Don't try this at home! (Slip Gun)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Slip Gun)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Courageous)
Re: iMacs With iTitude (Edwin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Courageous)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Max finally gets plonked
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:14:22 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 13:05:36 GMT, "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >>How could anybody even question whether browsers were a separate market
>> >>from operating systems, or that Microsoft combined the two by
>> >>'integrating' IE into Win98? Even Microsoft must admit this. They just
>> >>don't understand why its illegal, they can't deny they did it.
>> >
>> >Are you saying reasonable people can't disagree on this?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>And there's Max in a nutshel.
>
>Max is always right and no one has any right to disagree with him.
>
>Ignore for a moment the fact that Max admits that he pulls numbers out
>of his ass rather than posting factual information. Ignore for a moment
>the fact that Max admits that he makes up his own definitions to suit
>his purpose. Ignore for a moment the fact that Max doesn't have a clue
>what logic is and seems to be debating both sides of half the topics
>he's involved in. Ignore for a moment that Max admits that he doesn't
>know the details of most of the things he's arguing about.
>
>Max knows everythihng.
>
>I've had enough. Someone else will have to take care of correcting him
>so clueless newbies aren't led astray.
>
>*plonk*
The amazing thing is that Joe had the balls to post that about
somebody else! ;)
In alt.destroy.microsoft we aggravated Max to the point he sent out
emails declaring that he was leaving Usenet forever. He also
proclaimed himself always right and us always wrong. I wish I'd kept
mine. It was pretty damn funny.
He was back to posting in about a month.
--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://members.xoom.com/Aickman
------------------------------
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 17:14:25 +0100
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p490t$27q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8p28gs$qsg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8p1dkn$12i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <8p0m84$993$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > You did NOT claim that bind could do it all when you stated:
> > >
> > >
> > > "set the Win2K DNS up to forward to the Unix DNS"
> >
> > Because that wasn't the issue I was addressing - unlike you, I stick
> to
> > topic. The issue I was addressing was how to provide a Windows based
> DNS
> > while still allowing Unix admins to control the root level domain for
> your
> > company.
>
>
> Liar! this is a quote from the post that you were responding to (it
> questions DNS and ADS)
>
> I think that they have a good point when it comes to DNS. Here is what
> they have said about it:
>
> "We do have some questions as to what will happen to a company's DNS
> under the Windows 2000 model. Microsoft has tied in DNS pretty heavily
> to AD. In fact,
> Microsoft wants to become the DNS provider in your enterprise. In a
> multiplatform, multihost environment, you'll need to be very careful
> with interoperability--and
> with an eye toward internal politics. Most of the world's DNS today
> does not run on Microsoft platforms--and fouling up your customers' DNS
> systems will mess
> up their Net connectivity. You don't want to go there."
>
>
> There ARE big DNS interoperability problems or you WOULD NOT NEED TO
> isolate MS dns (Using MS servers or not) to it's own domain!!!!! I am
> objecting to your claim that making a seperate DNS domain for MS is a
> _simple_ solution to the "interoperability" problems with MS's DNS! I
> have "stayed" on the topic. The bottom line is, if you want to use AD,
> you will probably end up restructuring your network.
No. You *might* end up restructuring your DNS.
>It _will_ be a lot
> of work and it can cause many DNS problems. trying to set up DNS for
> active directory caused MAJOR problems for the Unix servers at the last
> place I worked.
What problems did you see? Did you raise them with Microsoft?
>The MS admins assured us that the dns changes would work
> and we would have NO problems. They sounded a lot like you in this
> thread. Oh, its nothing, DNS is no big deal.... Well it was! This is why
> I do not support letting MS admins have ANY thing to do with DNS!
>
> I have NOT gone into what a POS Active directory is to start with.
Please do, it might be entertaining.
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > > And WILL BIND ENABLE ALL features of Active Directory???
> > >
> > Yes. DNS simply provides a locator service for the Active Directory.
> SRV
> > records are used to locate the various Active Directory service
> providers
> > (such as Domain Controllers), obviously A records (dynamically created
> by
> > Win2K hosts) are used to locate machines.
> > So as long as BIND supports
> > 1. SRV records
> > 2. Dynamic updates
> > 3. Incremental transfers
> >
> > it will enable all the feature
>
>
> Liar! From the BIND FAQ:
>
> <quote>
>
> Microsoft Windows 2000 and BIND
>
> BIND by default checks all records to ensure that only hostnames are
> used where hostnames are expected to prevent accidental interoperability
> problems. Microsoft Windows 2000 uses a subzone called "_msdcs" to hold
> the Active Directory data. While this subzone cannot clash with any
> legal hostname it also makes it impossible to put hosts within this
> subzone without using an illegal name. The use of such hostnames will be
> rejected, by default, by BIND.
>
> The Active Directory wants to have its "global catalog" server within
> _msdcs (e.g. gc._msdcs.example.com) which will be rejected by default.
> To work around this issue we recommend that the Active Directory be a
> seperate zone (e.g. "_msdcs.example.com") configured to not check for
> illegal hostnames. This should be reasonable as the Window 2000 servers
> create this data and should not have interoperability problems with
> other Windows 2000 machines wanting to access this data.
>
> e.g.
>
> zone "_msdcs.example.com" {
> type master;
> file "_msdcs.example.db";
> check-names ignore;
> allow-update { localnets; };
> };
>
>
>
> </quote>
>
> This make it quite clear to me that MS active directory CAN NOT be
> fully supported by Bind! And that you need to rebuild DNS to support
> ADS.
>
>From Technet...
By default, a BIND server checks resource records to ensure that labels
conform
to RFC 1123 (which does not allow for the underscore character ("_") in host
labels) and does not load the master zone. Microsoft complies to RFC 2181
which
supersedes RFC 1123 and does not place any restrictions on characters used
in a
host label.
------------------------------
From: <[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, 6 Sep 2000 08:57:40 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >
> > > > I think you getting a little tangled, up untl this last message of
yours
> > the
> > > > question has been about Trolltech suing, not being sued as you have
> > > > transformed the discussion just now.
> > >
> > > I know that in the original argument the "threat" was TT suing
> > > harmony.
> > >
> > > However, I am also aware that for such a suit it makes no sense
> > > to talk about anti-trust, as Max is doing.
> > > After all, who would TT sue, if the alleged monopolist is TT itself?
> >
> > Someone injured by Trolltech's alleged violations of antitrust (or
equivlent
> > laws), who also has the desire and resources to persue the matter.
>
> Why would TT sue someone injured by TT? Read what I ask ;-)
> The point is: TT can not be at the same time be the only one threatening
> to sue
> and the monopolist, and the suit be about monopoly!
I was answering you question of who would consider suing Trolltech.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:22:18 GMT
In article <zcrt5.892$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christophe Ochal"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What British company is currently designing and manufacturing
>> servers of comparable quality to Sun Enterprise series or
>> HP servers?
>
>I was about to panic there, i thought you would mention Comcrap in the same
>line....
>BTW, wasn't HP a Brittish company in the beginning? Not sure tho..
>
You are perhaps thinking of BP - British Petroleum, HP - HewlettPackard didn't
originate in the U.K. - http://www.agilent.com/about/history/packard.html
three paragraphs down.
Pa\ul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:31:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> >"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OK, so I finally did it... Tested two machines, one Linux and one Win98
>> >> >> SE.
>> >> >>
>> >> ~~~~~~~trimmed~~~~~~~~
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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
>> >> >>
>> >> ~~~~trimmed~~~~~~~~
>> >> >> Other interesting facts:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Install times:
>> >> >> --------------
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Linux - 43 Minutes
>> >> >> Windows - 45 Minutes
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Time from start to first working dial-up connection:
>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Linux - 52 Minutes
>> >> >> Windows - 48 Minutes
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, it took only 3 minutes to configure windows to dial-up. Why? Well,
>> >> >> I first had to create a user in Linux and enable that user to make ppp
>> >> >> connections. This wasted some time. Aslo I had to enter the ISP's DNS
>> >> >> IP in the Linux machine, while this was not an issue with the Windows
>> >> >> box. The ISP's version of IE5 was used that did most of the set-up
>> >> >> automatically.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Time to authenticate:
>> >> >> --------------------
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Average times:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Linux: 4 Seconds
>> >> >> Windows: 9 Seconds
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Total Connections per machine:
>> >> >> -----------------------------
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Linux: 5 (3 line drops occured)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Windows: 4 (2 line drops occured)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Both machines were set-up to reconnect automatically. In all instances
>> >> >> we restarted the FTP clients manually.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That was that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am now convinced. Linux IS faster on dial-up then Windows, especially
>> >> >> on FTP. Any other person that want to add anything are welcome.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> PS. This test is still not 100% scientific. I KNOW THAT. Take it for
>> >> >> what it is. I believe that this is typical times you should get from
>> >> >> other machines in similar configurations.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I have similar results from "cable modem" connections from identical
>> >> >machines.
>> >> >
>> >> Either you are connecting to sites with slow connections or your cable
>> >> connection is truly fscked up. I just did 19mb in 55 seconds.
>> >
>> >That's inconsequential.
>> >
>> >The important point is, hitting the same sites, SIMULTANEOUSLY, from
>> >a Linux box and a Windows box, with identical hardware configurations,
>> >(other than the Windows box having MORE memory), the Linux box ALWAYS
>> >downloads the data faster.
>> >
>> >Why is that?
>> >
>>
>> Your the one that claimed to be getting similar results with a cable modem
>> connection as the above tests with 56k modems. That is something for you to
>> figure out along with your cable provider.
>
>Pffffft! In a pig's eye.
>
>There's nothing to figure out.
>
You find it acceptable that the cable modem connection is getting the similar
results as the 56k modem.
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edwin)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs With iTitude
Date: 6 Sep 2000 16:43:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Tom Elam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 21:06:06 GMT, Tom Elam wrote this reply to
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Volcania: The Volcano God):
>
>>>But Microsoft's has had its time. More and more people are becoming
>>>more and more skilled as we speak. Soon, there will be no need for a
>>>beginner's operating system. People will cry out for an OS that gives
>>>them the freedom to control their own world, to do what they want, how
>>>they want, they way they want. They will not be prepared to spend
>>>their hard-earned money filling someone else's pockets, they will be
>>>prepared to do it themselves, they will learn to build operating
>>>systems for themselves, how to write their own software.
>
>>Man, are you out of touch or what. 99% of the people on this planet
>>never have, and want to, see a single line of source code.
>
>Well the remaining 1% is a target market of 50,000,000 people :-)
>That's a decent sized niche market :-)
>
>[figuring 5 billion on the planet now. Now 99% of computer users
>is probably a more reasoanble figure. All in fun here.]
>
I know you're just making a joke, but you'll have to rework your figures.
Last time I heard it quoted, 75% of the world's population has no computer
of any kind.
Scott McNeally said in a PBS interview that half of the world's population
would die without even making a phone call any time in their lives.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:49:37 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote in message ...
>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?
Yes.
>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.
Exactly. And that's my point.
And I think all the discussion here about the rule of reason is just a way
to slip around the problem of establishing that Microsoft has a monopoly. I
think this will be found.
However, I'm not one of those who say Microsoft, re the desktop PC market,
is "dogmeat," "finished," etc., since I think it is an open question.
I definitely think the non-networked desktop is uncompetitive, and when it
is networked, middleware may afford competition.
If the breakup is done, and Microsoft divests Windows OSes. And then,
Microsoft's .NET platform takes over the old desktop AND server, in that
case, the desktop is finished.
More likely, the .NET platform and/or the Java platform will be available on
a wide range of sytems, both client and servers, which will become largely
indistinguishable.
Those future outcomes will give evidence on the separate product issue.
Maybe those who say Microsoft is "finished" are afraid of its implications,
ie that Microsoft cannot control competition (via middleware, devices, the
flavor of the day). So they want to focus of the "predatory" behavior or
anticompetitive business practices.
The result: a lot of talk about the rule of reason requirements, ie that
anticompetitive behavior is involved, when actually the whole rule of reason
was used against antitrust basically.
So the whole case is about your "as long as that holds."
I set these proposed elements of proof out to see if there is agreement on
the basic legal structure.
>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
Then why did Jackson bother to cite Grinnell?
I suppose every pack of pens sold by a vendor is an antitrust violation if
each pen isn't sold separately? :)
You know, citing cases is not so bad as citing statutes (that are
interpreted by cases).
But there are leading cases that are given a great deal of weight.
That's why a antitrust practicioner writing a summary of the line of
precedents is important. Or jury instructions that set out the elements of
proof. Even then they can be a great deal of dispute about which apply.
I haven't focused on the question of what standard applies if tying is
found, because I assume that's a foregone conclusion.
I suppose all the focus in the trail about market share, etc., was a waste
of time by the DoJ.
>
>=====
>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: Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake users: Don't try this at home!
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:49:23 +0000
2:1 wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bob Hauck wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 00:38:26 +0100, Tim Cain
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >Try dragging and dropping "/dev/mem" into the
> > > >"advanced editor"!!!
> >
> > > I get a box that says "you do not have permission to read this
> file".
> > > Maybe that's because I'm not running as root? If you are running as
> > > root, or the perms of /dev/mem are wrong, well, then that could be
> bad.
> >
> > Similar thing here, under Mandrake. Just did cat /dev/mem --
> > Permission denied. That figures:
> >
> > [frogguy@localhost frogguy]$ ls -al /dev/mem
> > crw-r----- 1 root kmem 1, 1 May 5 1998
> > /dev/mem
> >
> > The subject line should have been: "Linux users: Don't try this as
> > root!"
> > I'm sure there are lots of other things not to try, involving
> > /dev/zero
> > for instance (yes, I'm learning, slowly -- no, I haven't done anything
> > with /dev/zero, just come across a big DON'T).
>
> Here's a pointelss one:
>
> cat /dev/zero | head -c10M > bigfile
> mkfs.ext2 bigfile
> mkdir /tmp/1
> mount bigfile /tmp/1 -t loop=/dev/loop1
>
> cd /tmp/1
> etc...
>
> Or, even better. *guarnteed* to crash even the most stable linux system
> (as root):
>
> cat /dev/zero > /dev/kmem
>
> Or, for hours of fun and lots of zeros:
> od -v /dev/zero
>
> The list goes on and on...
> Personally, I always find
> cat /dev/random > /dev/hda1
> a good laff!
>
> > Whare ar yew, Tymb, dshust wen wie knead ue toot hell uss
> > Lie-nux suxx bygg thyme? Cumb bakc!
>
> Tymb Parma iss too mutuar too posd sily mesijis tu a Lixnu nooz
> gwoop. ispecily a advokisy nuuz gwoop.
>
> Seriously, though, that guy really cracks me up. I laugh out loud at
> most of his posts. They're so bloody funny! I *love* the way he spells
> 'Lixnu'! Do you think the spelling thing is automated, making him
> not too dim, but very bored, or does he just get kicks from typing wierd
> messages? He's more entertaining then the average troll.
>
> -Ed
>
I managed to completely ruin a floppy disk with "dd if=/dev/zero
of=/dev/fd0 count=1440k" (or something along those line).
To completely bugger your system, try "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda".
Ed (hey, we have the same name!)
Legal Disclaimer (caused by too many years using M$): The above is only
for educational purposes. I accept no responsibilty for any damage you
may cause to your system.
--
Those who trade away their privacy in favour of security will soon find
that they have neither.
------------------------------
From: Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:52:44 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Slip Gun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > WOW! You must have one hell of a PC! (Maybe a bit like the Love Bug). I
> > haven't been able to run 'doze for more than about 8 hours without
> > massive slowdown and crashing. Please tell me how you manage to achive
> > this.
>
> It's not that difficult. Just maintain your system. Always keep your BIOS
> and drivers up to date, make sure you prune your registry tree to remove
> cruft, delete your cache files every so often, clean out your temp directory
> every so often, and don't install hundreds of crappy utilities written by
> some kid in his basement.
Oh, is that all? I think I'll go and spend 200 quid on win ME now, then.
Cheers,
Ed
--
Those who trade away their privacy in favour of security will soon find
that they have neither.
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:56:33 GMT
> > Hint: most "partial birth" abortions are actually conducted during the
> > first two-three months of pregnancy. And there aren't that many annually,
> > in any case.
>
> I somehow doubt this.
As it turned out, you're right. They're a second trimester thing.
C//
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edwin)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs With iTitude
Date: 6 Sep 2000 16:57:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It was the Sun, 03 Sep 2000 21:06:06 GMT...
>...and Volcania: The Volcano God <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Linux is not aimed at that type of user,
>
>That's a foolish statement. Linux is not aimed at any kind of user.
>It hasn't got a target group. That's because Linux isn't a product.
This is true. That doesn't mean Linux does all things equally as well,
however.
>> Linux users are hungry for challenges, they
>> want to construct it themselves, how they want it to be. Brought
>> together by a common goal: to produce the Ultimate Operating system,
>> and provide it to the people for next to nothing.
>
>Huh? No. I just want a working computer. That's why I use Linux.
I want to run applications and games, myself. Working the computer for its
own sake isn't of interest to me (although it was when I was younger).
>> Linux is not a private, commercial OS, it is a revolutionary mission,
>> to take computing out of the hands of the large companies and
>> capitalist, and into the hands of the people of the 21st century.
>
>Are you really naive enough to believe that an operating system can be
>a political movement? Linux just is.
Linux is just the lastest thing in the Open Software Movement, and that
sure enough seems "political" to me.
>
>> Microsoft has done good for the computing world. It has brought
>> computers to the ordinary citizens, those who are not skilled with
>> computers, and given them the chance to experience the world of
>> computing and the Internet.
>
>Nonsense. Bullshit. Without Microsoft, we'd have something like cheap
>Suns or SGIs or maybe even Macs on our desktops. Microsoft did not
>play any kind of key role or have any new ideas, they just happened to
>suck up most of the market.
Whoa! Time out, fella! I was around when Microsoft wasn't the dominant
OS. We had *expensive* Suns and SGIs, and *expensive* proprietary systems
like the Amiga and Mac, with slow rates of improvement.
Microsoft was the "glue" that held the PC vendors together, and gave them
standards to follow, and that lead to the huge rates of PC production that
made PCs so cheap.
The Linux you love so much is a product of the PC, because its authors
couldn't afford to buy Unix workstations. They were poor students who
couldn't afford a Mac either. So if the PC hadn't dominated the market,
there would be no Linux!
>> Software will not be bought from the shops from large companies. It
>> will be programmed in every home,
>
>I don't know whether I want that particular kind of vision to come
>true...
That "vision" will never come true. The personal computer didn't really
take off until it had pre-made applications. If most people really wanted
to write their own software, they would have settled for machines with
compilers and nothing else. Even Linux users download lots of pre-made
apps.
>[warlording signature]
>
>Uh-oh.
>
>mawa
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:58:35 GMT
> > At 2-3 months, the fetus is too small to do a partial birth abortion --
> > or to need to.
>
> I know you can do "abort" on computers - but please take this thread somewhere
> else but computer related groups.
In Netscape:
Message-->Ignore Thread.
C//
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
