Linux-Advocacy Digest #955, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Stuart Fox)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
New benchmarks... (sfcybear)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Max finally gets plonked (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Computer and memory (Grega Bremec)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:49:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>
> What you didn't do was explain why you would need to do that at all to
> begin with. Why aren't you just using the existing DNS
infrastructure?
>
The second post or so quoted from the article where they mentioned they
didn't want you screwing with the existing DNS infrastructure.
> [...]
> >> why would you set up W2K to forward to Unix DNS if you telling me
that
> >> you suggeted NOT using w2K DNS??? Please try to remember what you
have
> >> said...
> >
> >Like I also said if you bothered to read, was that there were many
ways to
> >implement it, and what is easier for your company will probably be
> >different.
>
> So it could be that your experience, your recommendation, indeed, your
> information, will probably be entirely worthless, is that it?
My recommendation would change depending on the circumstances.
>
> >> 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 features
>
> So we don't need to screw things up by implementing DNS on the Active
> Directory server *at all*, and there's not a single reason (besides
> wanting to stop 'control by those Unix admins') to do so, is that what
> you're saying?
Indeed. There's one caveat, which I wasn't aware of until today
(thanks Craig) that you have to turn off invalid host name checking in
BIND, as the AD DNS entries comply to a new RFC than the BIND DNS does
(specifically - it uses the "_" character - not allowed in the old RFC,
and binary character is allowed in the new RFC. RFC numbers are in
another post, I'm away from my desk and can't be bothered looking them
up again.)
>
> I would really like to know this information, by the way, honestly.
> Because unless things (notably appellate things) move much more
quickly
> than is expected, I know quite a large number of people who are going
to
> be forced to use W2K and Active Directory, against their better
> judgement, and I think most of them will want to know how to minimize
> their exposure. I wouldn't want anyone to inadvertently forget to
> mention that there's no reason whatsoever to use 'Microsoft DNS
> services' on the AD server, if they know how to set up the real DNS
> system to 'correctly' point to W2K.
>
> It would still make perfect sense to implement a sub-domain, as you
> indicated, as that will further minimize the damage that would/will
> occur when AD starts 'dynamically' updating things and then starts
> failing rather rudely and screwing up the network. That would be
> typical behavior for one of these anti-competitive little jobbies.
> Microsoft doesn't seem interested in building stuff that works; just
> stuff that sells. When you're a monopoly, that's all you need.
>
They did it before they were a monopoly, and it still sold. Guess
consumers just aren't that smart.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:01:55 GMT
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Fcrt5.906$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 4Yat5.50423$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:d36t5.806$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Nope, not necessarily. They're facts as seen by a Judge who spent
most
> > of
> > > > his time sleeping in court. And ignoring a great deal of MS
evidence.
> > >
> > > Oh, right, like the forged video they had about IE? Or their statement
> > that
> > > it IE couldn't be removed from win98?
> > > (btw, it *CAN* be done, as proven by a guy, don't remember who tho)
> >
> > No, it can't be done. Not without destroying key functionality. Do a
> search
> > for 98Lite -- you'll see a list of things that DON'T WORK after you do
it.
>
> Can you tell a few of apps that won't work? Just name 5 apps that *are
not*
> by M$
Quicken, TurboTax, anything using HTML Help (which are numerous), Neoplanet,
anything using a web browser window.
I don't have a comprehensive list, I'm sorry.
> > Also, the judge actually wanted them to remove the icon -- he just
didn't
> > understand when he asked them to remove everything. Which is why MS
> appeared
> > arrogant in court.
>
> then *why* didn't they remove the icon?
Because although they offered to do that, the judge decided that he wanted
EVERYTHING removed. Every DLL, piece of code, the works. So they had to take
him at his word.
> > > give me one piece of "evidence" that M$ produced that was valid
> >
> > Everything entered into the record as evidence (you can see a whole slew
> of
> > these things at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass) except the video
> > footage, as it was edited to produce in a smaller amount of time.
>
> I want an URL that points to a company or anything that's not directly
> related to this case, M$ can put whatever they want on their website
No, they can't. Not when it comes to court evidence. You need to look at the
MS site, and at the DOJ site, and compare evidence. Each has only half of
the story, and in isolation, you'll get bias. Falsifying court evidence and
proceedings when reproducing them is against the law, so they can't just
"put anything they want" on their website.
> > > You're an M$ lover, and an idiot to boot
> >
> > No; I just try to give everyone the courtesy of a fair shake of the
stick.
>
> Meaning?
Exactly what I said.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:02:42 GMT
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9Jrt5.911$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I hadn't heard any news, but I wasn't really watching what happened
> > after the anti-trust trial got started. Do you have any info or links?
>
> I just remember the outcome that forced them to rename their Java VM to M$
> VM, because SUN had pulled them to court, T.Max might have some links tho
There was no such outcome of a ruling. The Microsoft JVM was always named as
such.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:03:43 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> None of them have anything on "Scorch"
> http://www.classicgaming.com/scorch/scorch12.zip
>
> It plays a little quick on todays computers if you don't slow it way down.
Wish I knew someone with the source to that... I could have quite a few fun
weekends updating it... :)
Si
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: New benchmarks...
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:00:14 GMT
These are from the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation
www.spec.org/
and the tests were performed by Dell.
www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000501-00028.html
www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000626-00054.html
I know that Tux is in kernel space but what about IIS???
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:17:59 GMT
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:26:47 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> What GPL software are you thinking of? Most libraries (what one
>> would "link" to) are LGPL, not GPL (there are brain dead exceptions
>> such as readline, but they are few and far between). LGPL code has
>> no problem linking with non-GPL code.
>
>However, the FSF explicitly discourages the use of LGPL.
So?
GNOME isn't GPL, KDE isn't GPL, glibc isn't GPL, and even GNUstep isn't GPL.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:18:50 GMT
It appears that on Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:07:02 +1000, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It appears that on Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:44:36 +1000, in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, comparing system stability between two systems that aren't doing
>even
>> >remotely similarly complex things (evidently, console apps vs GUIs) is
>> >hardly fair.
>>
>> It certainly is when one system allows you to escape the GUI and the
>> other doesn't.
>
>Not even then. It would support an argument that one system is more
>flexible, however.
I think it's perfectly fair if you are comparing stability to compare
the most stable setup each system allows.
>> >> If you want to see what I consider a good browser, check out
>> >> http://www.opera.com - they are porting to linux and that's just one
>> >> more nail in the old MS coffin so far as my continuing to use them
>> >> (willingly) goes...
>> >
>> >I've used Opera before. It's been a while, I might have another look.
>> >
>> >*shrug*, I see no need to swithc from IE. It's fast, stable and has a
>lot
>> >of features I like a lot.
>>
>> I use the web for research fairly often, and I really like having the
>> MDI interface. Just open 8 different pages with either of the big
>> browsers and try to switch back and forth between them efficiently and
>> you'll see why that's an advantage. After getting used to Opera every
>> other browser out there seems positively paleolithic on this one point
>> alone.
>
>Ugh. I *hate* MDI, and I'm glad to be seeing the end of it as application
>stop using it. I can't think of a single advantage it has. Just the idea
>of having to have an enormous parent window open just so I could see the
>content of multiple browser windows and drag & drop/copy & paste stuff out
>of them is making me cringe.
Well that's your choice. But when you need to load multiple windows
and switch between them efficiently, there is no better way to do it,
so if you ever need to do that your personal preference will cost you.
>> >> Why does NASA still use 386s?
>> >
>> >Inertia ?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> >Because they work ?
>>
>> Closer.
>>
>> >Because they've been their since a projects
>> >inception when a 386 was probalby the fastest thing you could buy and
>they
>> >aren't easily replaced.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> I'm not talking about ones that are "up there" and can't easily be
>> replaced. I'm talking about systems being used on the space shuttle,
>> which can be upgraded anytime they want. They put in a fresh chip,
>> just to take no chances - but it's still a 386 chip.
>
>Um, I think you'll find upgrading a system in the space shuttle would be a
>little more involved than dropping in a new chip, if you wanted to upgrade
>it from a 386.
A little. But it wouldn't be any big deal at all, if it was desirable.
>> They use 386s because they are *more reliable.* The MTBF is higher.
>> They are more resistant to interference, and less given to isolated
>> errors. That's why. It's the KISS imperative at work.
>
>Do you have any documentation to back this up ? I have no doubt 386s are
>still in use, it's your reasons I question.
I got this from a NASA spokesman, on a show on the NASA channel (on
satellite.) I believe the discovery channel has also aired a show
where this was mentioned. I don't see why it's hard to believe, it's
perfectly logical that a less complicated device will be more
reliable.
>> >> And firewalls are not mission critical?
>> >
>> >Depends. I would imagine someone like Redhat isn't running their
>corporate
>> >firewall on an old 386 shoved in the corner.
>>
>> I doubt that too, but RedHat is a very high traffic site. For many
>> networks, a 386 is perfectly capable of handling the traffic. Why
>> throw away the 386 and buy a PIII NT box just to do the same job, but
>> not as well? How rational is that?
>
>Well, for just a firewall on that scale you're not going to need a PIII. An
>old pentium will do the job just fine.
A 386 will do the job just fine too.
>> >> >Btw, NT 3.51 would probably work fairly well on a 386 with fast SCSI
>> >disks
>> >> >and enough RAM, if you really wanted to.
>> >>
>> >> NT 3.51 didn't work well on pentiums. I know, I had to babysit several
>> >> of those boxes. I ran Netware and NT side by side on the same hardware
>> >> for quite awhile, NT 3.51 couldn't hold a candle.
>> >
>> >I ran NT 3.51 (and 4) quite happily on a 486. NT4 on a 386 would be
>> >stretching, but I can't see why 3.51 wouldn't. Especially for file/print
>> >duty.
>> >
>> >Netware would probalby have been faster,
>>
>> Hey, look, I ran those boxes, I know what I'm talking about, I'm not
>> going to argue with you, you can choose to disbelieve if you want.
>
>I'm only disbelieving you because I also ran NT4 and 3.51 *as a workstation*
>quite happily on a 486 and a Pentium 100.
Well I'm obviously not talking about a desktop, I'm talking about a
server.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:24:42 GMT
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:57:58 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Fcrt5.905$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Erm... apart from a $140,000 setup fee? Duping DVDs is expensive.
>>
>> So was duplicating CD's
>
>Duplicating DVDs is still currently expensive, and unlikely to go down for a
>number of years, at the very least for DVD9's.
It's no more expensive for the serious pirate than it is for
the original manufacturer. Given the scale of profit involved,
it's reasonable to expect that there is quite an abundance of
pirates out there willing to make the necessary investments in
terms of equipment.
There are already entire CD fabs that are dedicated to piracy
as is.
>
>> > Now, what DeCSS lets you do is extract the MPEG data streams, which you
>> can
>> > then run through a converter, and split over two CDs which will play in
>> most
>> > DVD players. You can then dupe them to kingdom come.
>>
>> Or you can write a player that *plays* the Mpeg stream
>
>Uhuh...
>
>> BTW, current software used for duping them just grabs the outputstream of
>an
>> existing player
>
>True...
>
>> > Unfortunately, that's a big whopping side effect of DeCSS. *shrugs*. DVD
>> > piracy is the latest cracker fad -- there's whole sites (and whole
>tools)
>> > being written just for this purpose. Kind of cool in some ways -- but I
>> can
>> > see the MPAA's point.
>>
>> So can i, but that doesn't *prove* it was written for piracy
>
>True... however, that's what they'll see, because that's where they're being
>threatened. They don't care about an Amiga DVD player, or a Linux one --
>they just care about knock-off VCDs.
Bullshit.
Serious Pirates don't need worry about DeCSS or equivalents
to do their damage. They never had. Even the casual pirate
never had. As long as there are sanctioned software decoders
of any kind, the data stream will there for the taking.
That is a simple consequence of the current model of computing.
What the MPAA wants is tighter control and quite likely more
lucrative profit models in the future that become possible as
a consequence of that degree of control.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:27:53 GMT
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:01:55 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Fcrt5.906$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> 4Yat5.50423$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:d36t5.806$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > Nope, not necessarily. They're facts as seen by a Judge who spent
>most
>> > of
>> > > > his time sleeping in court. And ignoring a great deal of MS
>evidence.
>> > >
>> > > Oh, right, like the forged video they had about IE? Or their statement
>> > that
>> > > it IE couldn't be removed from win98?
>> > > (btw, it *CAN* be done, as proven by a guy, don't remember who tho)
>> >
>> > No, it can't be done. Not without destroying key functionality. Do a
>> search
>> > for 98Lite -- you'll see a list of things that DON'T WORK after you do
>it.
>>
>> Can you tell a few of apps that won't work? Just name 5 apps that *are
>not*
>> by M$
>
>Quicken, TurboTax, anything using HTML Help (which are numerous), Neoplanet,
>anything using a web browser window.
OTOH, such components need not be imbeded in the OS to achieve
such things. Netscape + BMC Patrol under Sparc Solaris would be
a nice counterexample.
[deletia]
Note how it is only the browser that is seen as a shareable component
and noone seems to be mentioning any other examples. It's rather
obvious that Microsoft only did what it did to Mosaic to undermine
Netscape rather than it being good engineering.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
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 18:35:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>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*
Welcome to the club.
I wouldn't follow up on this but I had an idea as I was
reading the latest rambling on slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/01/1444229
If you read the 'article' by Jon Katz (or if you are
familiar with any of his other work) you may notice a
striking similarity between his rambling, and idiotic
version of 'logic' and the 'logic' produced by one T. Max.
There is no proof (and none needed), there is no logic
that anyone else can follow (because they are so far above
us that we couldn't possibly understand), and anyone else
is automatically not capable of seeing the conspiracy that
they have proven (through their convoluted methods of
reasoning).
Amazing similarities don't you think? Now, if T. Max
could just figure out a way to get paid by some big name
corporation for irritating the piss out of people (which
if you read any of the comments attached to the above
article on slashdot is all Katz manages to do), I think
the two would be identical (hmm, maybe I'm on to something
here...).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:44:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>
>Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> If you flub enough you should take up guitar. Then you
>> could be in an 'alternative' band and play on the radio.
>>
>> Of course, unless you are between the age of 13 and 28 you
>> probably wouldn't get far (and something about looking
>> good in tight leather pants fits in there too, male or
>> female).
>
>Aw Sucks, I just misses the age range by only <censored> years.
>
>>
>> BTW, was anyone else bothered when 'alternative' meant
>> 'popular'?
>
>That is something just does not jive. When popular is the same as
>alternative, what is "alternative" alternate to? Perhaps it is alterante to
>unpopular music?
Actually, the corporations in charge of 'recordings' (RIAA
anyone?) figured out that more people were buying
'alternative' stuff than the crap they were trying to
shovel down our throats. Of course, they then 'bought' a
few of the alternative bands, destroyed the little bit of
originality they had, and insisted that the 'new and
improved' alternative bands were just as good as the
alternative bands that we used to listen too.
In this case, alternative used to mean: alternative to big
business controlled music. The big business couldn't
handle anything beyond their controll existing, so bought
the rights to say what they had was 'alternative', even
when it wasn't.
Pretty confusing huh?
At least punk's not dead! Oh shit, never mind.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:50:21 GMT
...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
>
>What would it be like? We wouldn't have any whiny lazy bitching talking
>heads that seem to think _I'M_ the arrogant one. That's just for starters...
>The world would be far more productive and technologically advanced for
>second. Shall I go on?
Man, you have a _SERIOUS_ problem. Quit posting for two days. Think
over what you just wrote here. Think it over again. Re-think it yet
again.
Did you mean it when you wrote it? Do you still mean it after rethinking
it three times? If you do, I'm sooooo sorry for you. You seem to have
missed the entry point to understanding how the world works utterly
and entirely...
Shall I play to be your sensei once again? There is no advance without
retreat. There is no day without night. There is no good without bad.
Do you get it? There is no advanced America without someone they can
drain and live off. To mention Iraq just for starters. Or Cuba. Or...
Bah. It's not worth it.
>Now, to address your ignorant "It's not us European's fault..." remark.
>
>I never said it was Europe's fault.
Whose fault is it?
"It's not America's fault you guys don't have advanced technology..."
Who said that? Chad, you seem to disappoint me more from one post to
the other.
>Downloading RedHat Linux is a 1+ GB adventure. No one's complaining
>about that. How is MS different in this regards?
You only download RedHat ONCE. And then, you can _choose_ to upgrade.
Nothing's going to break if you choose to download a sufficiently
stable distribution. No blue screens, you know.
Sorry,
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:48:05 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bullshit.
>
> Serious Pirates don't need worry about DeCSS or equivalents
> to do their damage. They never had. Even the casual pirate
> never had. As long as there are sanctioned software decoders
> of any kind, the data stream will there for the taking.
>
> That is a simple consequence of the current model of computing.
>
> What the MPAA wants is tighter control and quite likely more
> lucrative profit models in the future that become possible as
> a consequence of that degree of control.
Presumably you've got lots of experience with foreign marketplaces where
taking a DVD and converting it to an XVCD (DVD quality on CDROM) is
commonplace?
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:49:31 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Note how it is only the browser that is seen as a shareable component
> and noone seems to be mentioning any other examples. It's rather
> obvious that Microsoft only did what it did to Mosaic to undermine
> Netscape rather than it being good engineering.
Netscape lost a deal with Intuit for not having a componentizable browser.
Similarly, that's why AOL went with IE.
As for the rest -- HTML Help makes great sense.
Using a browser to navigate the file system -- if it's such a stupid idea,
why does KDE do it?
Simon
------------------------------
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 11:55:10 -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:
> >
> > > We have a president of KDE e.V. but that position has
> > > absolutely no power on anything regarding software,
> > > he is just there to do paperwork.
> >
> > Who is he?
>
> I would have to ask, really.
Another question, what are connection between KDE.com and the KDE project.
Is KDE.com a commercial venture? I have noted that it does have emplyees
and investors.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
