Linux-Advocacy Digest #996, Volume #27 Wed, 26 Jul 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (sandrews)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:38:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>>Yes, upgrading every version of Windows has always been a "need more
>>hardware" issue. Some endlessly criticize Microsoft for it, but I
>>don't. If for no other reason than it has outfitted everybody's desktop
>>with a $2000 supercomputer, capable of trashing the entire MIPS of the
>>planet in the first three quarters of this century.
>
>Why exactly is this a benifit? Perhaps you are a PC salesman, but for the
>majority of end users, a W2K, PIII-800, 128 MB machine is no more productive
>than a WfW 3.11, P-90, 16 MB machine, or even a DR-DOS 6.0, 386-33, 4 MB
>machine. As long as the software fulfills the requirements (and Word
>Perfect 7 for DOS does most of what people need of a word processor), why
>should faster hardware and slower software be a benifit?
Faster hardware is a benefit. Though it only "balances out" the drain
of slower software in the Windows world, its ensure that the faster
hardware is already in place. Until Win95{+} bloated what was typically
a 486 with 4 meg of RAM to a Pentium III with 128M RAM common, Linux
plus a full X window manager was a pretty tight fit on a desktop PC.
If it weren't for Microsoft software bloat, Linux wouldn't actually be a
viable alternative for desktop systems.
>>People see the
>>"1.5" in Moore's law, and don't even closely comprehend what it means.
>>A measure of density is an *exponential* derivative of computing power.
>>And we've got *GIGABYTES* of local persistent storage, for pennies.
>
>We only need it because of software taking up hundreds of MB of disk space.
Oh, but we can use it for anything we want, once we dump the
anti-developers.
>>If it weren't for Microsoft, it is indeed quite possible that nobody
>>could have run a mini-computer operating system with a full
>>entertainment-grade graphic user interface on a PC for many years to
>>come.
>
>Rubbish. You are actually saying that bloat-ware is good because it leads
>to more powerful PCs? How about we start making highly inefficient car
>engines - it must be a great innovation, because it will lead to bigger
>petrol tanks.
The flaw in the analogy is that fuel is a physical substance. Software
isn't. A bigger tank can be filled with crud or filled with good
software. There are no environmental or non-renewable resource issues
to consider, so why not? And the fact that it got bigger so that it
could hold more crud doesn't prevent it from being filled with good
software, once an open market has been established.
[...]
>There is one thing above all that demands power from a computer, and that is
>games. Much of the advance in PC power has been driven by games. And that
>would happen whatever MS had done.
Quite true, but you'd have to rate new versions of Windows as #2, at
least. And while games are often the reason for buying a bigger system,
it isn't necessarily a large enough market opportunity, in competition
with consoles and in comparison to office desktops, to actually make
such systems affordable to the common consumer.
>>A pity they had to hold up software innovation so long to do it,
>>but we're ready to ROCK, now.
>
>Yea, they said that last time.
Who said it, and what "last time"?
>The point about the costs of upgrading to W2K, however, are not restricted
>to the hardware costs of upgrading a particular machine. To get many of the
>benifits of W2K, you have to upgrade *everything* on the network.
[...]
>If you are building a new network from scratch, or have only a couple of
>machines, then upgrading to W2K is probably no worse than any other Windows
>upgrade - i.e., a nightmare, but doable. But if all you want to do is
>change over a single server, or a couple of workstations, the MS upgrade
>philosophy requires you to turn your whole system on its head. It is no
>wonder the takeup of W2K is so very small.
It well illustrates the whole "lock in" gambit, doesn't it? Its so
blindingly obvious that even clueless business people recognize it as a
scam, and won't buy into it unless they're strong-armed.
I think it supports my contention that anti-competitive acts are those
which, without the benefit of market power (with MS's being insufficient
for this level of leverage, with Linux snapping at their heels and the
gov't dragging them through court, on top of the monumentally crappy
software itself) would simply be stupid for a regular company. They
*prevent competition*, and preventing competition is only a benefit to a
business that doesn't have to, or can't, compete to begin with. The
same tactics that monopolists use to *increase* their market dominance
would *decrease* the competitive capabilities of a non-monopolist.
That's why, despite the apparent resistance of the market to MS's last
few products, and the ongoing threat to their monopoly of Linux, their
attempts at restraint of trade and monopolization are still criminal.
Just because you didn't get away with the money doesn't mean you didn't
commit bank robbery. And restraint of trade and attempts to monopolize
are still crimes, even if they aren't successful. Its just real hard to
prove that a "business strategy" is restraint of trade or monopolization
when its primary effect is to decrease the company's competitiveness.
It therefore doesn't seem to make sense to prosecute such activities:
they're self-correcting. Thus what some see as "unfair" application of
anti-trust laws is really just an example of the minimal government
interference in open trade which the anti-trust statutes are meant to
embody.
[...]
>I think you are confusing Win95 with NT. Win95 does not protect the system
>from bad applications - it is better than Win3.1, but bad applications (or
>bad system components) can quickly and easily trash the whole system.
It is sufficiently better than 3.1 that it was a major reason for
accepting Win95 to begin with. That, and the TCP/IP bundling.
>Win95
>does not have proper pre-emptive multi-tasking - it is easy for an
>application to take so much of the time that the system is effectively hung.
>Even the explorer interface is not properly multi-threaded. The interface
>was a bit nicer, however.
The same (except for the last) is still true of NT, as well.
[...]
>Only MS could release a product prematurely 3 years late.
<G> Only MS could get away with it, that's for sure.
>But even MS
>marketing had a limit (of around a year, IIRC) of how long they can continue
>to sell vapourware and compete with existing, far superior products. But
>then again, only IBM marketing could take such a brilliant product as OS/2,
>with no real competition except this vapourware, and still totally fail to
>sell it.
You invert the case by accepting the common perception, without critical
insight. OS/2 was neither a brilliant product, nor a failure. The fact
is, "vapourware" is the *toughest* competition you can have. Promises
made by a dominant market monopolist are anything but "no real
competition". They are anti-competitive. And anti-competitive
strategies *cannot* be "competed against". That's the whole idea of why
they're called *anti-* competitive, instead of just "not competitive" or
"good marketing".
>>You were right before, BTW. I had miscombobulated earlier versions OS/2
>>with Warp, OS/2 4.x. Warp was, instead, a response to Win95.
>
>Warp 3.0 was released about a year before Win95 (about 2 years after Win95,
>"Chicago", was anounced).
OS/2 3.0 was the first to be called "Warp", I guess. But everybody just
waited around for 4.x to be released, as it had so many of the network
connectivity features on which the promise of capabilities were
predicated. Win95 and Warp 4.0 overlapped in terms of deployment.
>>Its
>>amazing how a quickly a novel component of an operating system becomes
>>standard when a monopoly implements it, and internetworking was no
>>acception. Warp was to be the LAN version of OS/2, just as Windows for
>>Workgroup was.
>
>You are mixing your facts again. Warp Connect was to Warp what WfW 3.11 was
>to Win3.11. But your point stands none-the-less.
Thanks for helping me clear things up. Warp Connect, I recall (Warp
4.x) may have been perceived as "what WFW was to 3.1", but it was really
far more competitive and connected than Win95 ever was. I've never been
a big fan of IBM software, so I always saw a lot of problems with it for
the average user. But corporate desktops would have been five years
ahead of the game if OS/2 hadn't been destroyed by MS anti-competition.
[...]
>< Snip the petty name-calling - when are you going to grow up, T. Max? Call
>BG evil by all means, but calling someone who is presenting a reasoned
>(albeit often wrong, IMHO) arguement "stupid" does not lend itself to
>serious discussion. >
Trolling doesn't lend itself to serious discussion, either. And while
it might be considered less insulting, it is *far* more disruptive, both
by its nature and its use of subterfuge. Apparently, we have different
criteria for what we call "reasoned argument". I'll admit, my standards
are pretty high. But so is my tolerance, generally.
[...]
>>They are the only competent authority. Have you some alternate reality
>>to escape to in order to avoid prosecution under U.S. law for
>>restraining trade and monopolizing? US courts are hardly the only ones
>>that enforce anti-trust statutes. Microsoft currently faces action in
>>Europe and Asia, as well. Several in each, I believe. The argument for
>>intentional ignorance goes stronger.
>
>I think the point is that US laws and US courts have a rather poor
>reputation when it comes to punishing rich people or corporations. I won't
>go quite as far as to say they are corrupt, nor will I claim that European
>courts are anywhere near perfect, but remember what happened last time MS
>got convicted?
And this is a reason not to prosecute a rich corporation?
>Their "punishement" was to promise not to do it again, but
>with let-out clauses that let them carry on almost exactly as before. Look
>at the other sorts of wonderful laws and regulations the US has managed to
>produce to ensure that the rich, powerful companies can beat down small
>companies and get the consumers to pay for it all - the DCMA is an excellent
>example, as is the joke called the US patent office.
I think that this is a misrepresentation, a common and widespread
fallacy. In fact, it is propaganda encouraged by the mediaocrocy in
order to encourage typical citizens to fight anti-trust ideals. There
are no laws to ensure that the rich, powerful companies can beat down
small ones. Copyright and patent are not set up to give preference for
corporate ownership of intellectual property. I'll agree that the
routine application of patent to software, and the misappropriation of
copyright for software, may be considered inappropriate and inhibiting.
But the reason it appears that the big guys have the law on their side
is because people are willing to be cowed by the threat of "getting
sued". Forgetting, I guess, that the optimum weapon for fighting
oppression of liberty is *knowledge and integrity*, not arms and armor,
and that defense of liberty is a *responsibility* in a free country, not
an option.
>Yannick (and I, and many, many others outside the US, and even some inside
>the US) do not believe the US courts are competent to handle affairs such as
>this because their past record shows they are incompetent. Even when they
>come to a fair result, things have taken so long that the results are
>meaningless.
I believe you've swallowed the bullshit, to be honest, fed to you by
mega-corps. Not through any conscious conspiracy of purposeful
propaganda, but merely by the acceptance of the power of businesses and
corporations. Such power is enslaved to, not transcendent over, the
individuals right to be treated fairly, regardless of their economic
situation. Considering the US-led development of "Western Civilization"
in the last hundred years, it seems pretty silly to think "their past
record shows they are incompetent." Or rather, that they're more
incompetent than any other court or law.
Did you know that Alexander Bell stole the crucial idea that made his
telephone work? Did you know that Thomas Edison was more like Bill
Gates than most people realize? Its a shame that everything can't truly
be fair, and the average guy can't get an even break. But that has
nothing to do with US courts or laws; it has to do with citizens and how
outraged or accepting they are of unethical behavior.
>The European authorities had originally decided not to pursue MS for
>anti-trust behaviour, since it would duplicate the US effort. They got
>bored waiting for the US courts to actually do something, and took action
>themselves. But there is a very significant difference - the US courts are
>concentrating on punishing MS for what they did - the European courts are
>concentrating on trying to stop similar actions in the future.
I think you have it backwards. The EU court is focusing, IMO, on
retrograde restrictions of particular acts; the US court goes on to
prevent recurrences. The breakup is a remedy, not a punishment. I do
not mean to denigrate the EU legal process; in many ways I think it is
more beneficial to the consumer. But, typically, the US court places
more of an emphasis on individual liberties, while the EU concentrates
on civilized behavior. Perhaps that's the root of your perception that
the US effort is regressive or slow.
[...]
>>Yes, it is. IE is already as "open" as you seem to think is required.
>>I think you have a misconception concerning that particularly
>>troublesome concept. Was it you who described (correctly, in context)
>>Windows Explorer (File Manager) as "open"? That kind of 'open', IE
>>already is, effectively. It doesn't do any good, because its still
>>either IE, or the OS, or MS middleware. IE isn't a shell like Explorer,
>>as much as anyone wants to insist it can pretend to be. It is an
>>application; a web browser. So says the marketplace, and so it is.
>
>Some of the APIs are available, but by no means all. With a single MS,
>there is no real alternative, however, to making the source code available
>if you want to make all the APIs available. If the APIs and architecture
>were documented, MS could easily keep the documentation and implementation
>out of step. To my mind, the greatest benifit of the split is that this
>sort of information will have to be published, and it will have to be
>accurate and up-to-date, since the internal information channels will be cut
>off.
To the US court's mind, that is the entire intent and purpose of the
breakup. In the 80s, this was commonly referred to as a "chinese wall".
[...]
>>I wasn't aware they'd offered to open any source. Do you have details?
>
>Some high-ranking MS person suggested it in a TV interview, and it was
>immediately denied by other MS top brass, and was then followed by official
>statements saying the MS was willing to cooperate with the DoJ as long as
>their "ability to innovate" was not compromised. It was all a public image
>stunt, to suggest that MS was really being kind and helpful and the DoJ was
>just being vindictive.
I remember now. I never took it seriously enough to think they were
actually suggesting opening any source code.
>>>> we might as well have them cease to exist.
>>>
>>>Now you're turning into an extremist.
>>
>>Bill Gates is the extremist. I'm just a guy on Usenet.
>
>BG is an extremist, but, T. Max, so are you.
I am an extreme *moderate*, to be perfectly honest. It is the only
extremist position I'm willing to tolerate.
[...]
>I don't quite get this idea of forcing people to choose something else. You
>can offer people the choice of something else, you can force people to make
>the choice between two products, but forcing and choosing are mutually
>exclusive. What we want is that people can freely choice MS Word, or Word
>Perfect, or whatever, rather than being forced to buy MS Word whether they
>like it or not.
Its not an idea to begin with, that's why you don't "get it". Its just
Yannik engaging in furious arm-waving.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:45:07 -0300
Lars Träger escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) wrote:
> > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 14% of iMac buyers switched from PC. Unless they used Win 3.1 or older,
> > > they swirched from PMT to CMT. That's from 3.7 million units sold.
> > > That's half a million people who switched from PMT to CMT just for the
> > > pretty case (or the ease of use). Can't be that important to them.
> >
> > 14% of iMac users are what percentage of PC users? 0.5%?
> > In that case, you could confidently say that for .5% of PC users
> > PMT is less important than ease of use and pretty cases combined.
>
> Yeah, but how many PC users chose their OS *because* it had PMT instead
> of CMT? Those .5% of PC users are just the ones who *switched* to one
> model (in the 2 years of its existance) despite CMT, about 10x as much
> (more if you don't count those who haven't bought a new Mac in the last
> 2 years) still use the MacOS, not an OS with PMT.
That matches pretty well with the statement I made, that CMT is adequate
for Mac users most of the time.
> And those are only the ones who made it obvious that they thought other
> things are more important than PMT. If MS hadn't switched to PMT in
> Win95, more than 80% of PC users would still use CMT.
And cursing it. Or have we already forgotten that windows 95 is, in
general, way more stable than windows 3.1, and less blocking?
Both things are related to it being PMT.
In this series of meaningless statements, we could say that 99% of
PC users switched from CMT to PMT. There have been way more people
switching from CMT to PMT than from PMT to CMT, no matter how
you measure them.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:35:07 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> sandrews wrote:
> >
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > >You can't even be bothered to test a simple 10-line program, and
> > > > > > > >yet, you expect us to believe your other exhortations?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Come now, we're not nearly as stupid as you, punk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, that's true, but he was providing a quick-and-dirty example of
> > > a
> > > > > > > concept, and his code illustrated the solution. He might be stupid
> > > (and
> > > > > > > I'm anxious to learn more either way), but he is merely a "punk", at
> > > > > > > best, for not actually testing the scratch-code he was using for a
> > > > > > > simple example. I'd like to hear a more telling argument
> > > confronting
> > > > > > > his other exhortations, if you've got one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More to the point, he thinks that string-variables are an appropriate
> > > > > > solution for binary data.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I just did it cause it was quick and dirty but you constantly ignore
> > > > > that. Fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Strings are assumed to terminate at any byte that is all 00's.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong. You are wrong. Ahhh mr programmer man, you are so limited in your
> > > > > knowledge and skills and it shows. Basic is not hampered by zero
> > > > > termination. I can include ascii 0 values in my strings all I want,
> > > > > anywhere, without any ill effect. You'd know that if you were a real
> > > > > programmer...
> > > >
> > > > ASCII (0) is also known as "NULL"
> > >
> > > no dumb dumb, only sometimes - in databases a NULL doesn't equal anything
> > > and doesn't equal ASCII zero at all. Have you never worked in a database
> > > before?
> > >
> >
> > Actually the true value of a "NULL" is implementation and machine
> > specific IF you
> > want to get technical.
>
> Wrong.
>
> The ASCII symbol for 0x00 is NUL. It has been this was for 35 years.
>
Which is different from NULL, I am discussing NULL here, Have a look
at K&R.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:42:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>OS/2 Warp (version 3.0) had full support for Win16. There were very few WfW
>3.11 programs that did not run equally well or better under Warp. A few had
>some problems with fonts, but for the most part Win16 programs run much
>better under Warp than under WfW3.11 (you could multi-task them properly,
>run seperate full-screen Windows sessions with different resolutions or
>colour depths, give each Windows session much more resources), and Warp was
>vastly supperior for running DOS programs. It was available in two
>versions - one used the Windows installation you already had, the other had
>its own copy of Windows 3.1, and cost more (as you had to pay for the extra
>licence), but ran a bit faster.
>
>IBM had full access to the Win3.1 source code. One of their more
>interesting experiments was to compile different parts of the code with a
>selection of compilers, and choose the best results - without changing the
>source code, they ended up with a Win 3.1 installation which was noticably
>smaller and up to 20% faster than the official MS compilation.
>
>MS did not try to break OS/2's Win16 support. After all, users still needed
>a Win3.1 licence, whether it was included with the OS/2 or bought
>seperately. MS has commited enough real crimes - there is no need to accuss
>them of things they didn't do. As OS/2 was almost always an addition to DOS
>and Win3.1, it was not a threat to that market.
>
>Warp 3.0 also had support for Win32s version 1.20 (the add-ons for Win3.1
>which gave programs some 32-bit features, excluding threading,
>multi-tasking, long filenames, and other features that could not be
>implemented on Win3.1). For a while, Win32s was a popular subset of Win32
>functionality that gave demanding programs a speed boost and let them run on
>Win3.1 as well as NT3.5.
>
>OS/2 was very much a threat to the Win32 market, however. If people could
>run 32-bit Windows programs on OS/2, then they would not buy Win95. So
>shortly after Warp was released, MS changed Win32s to version 1.25 (there
>were no real differences in the functionality except the version number),
>and encouraged Win32s developers to look for this as the minimum required
>version. Thus new Win32s programs would not run on OS/2. MS refused IBM
>access to the new Win32s code, so that they could not update their support.
I will generously defer to your well detailed description of events.
Thank you for taking the time to provide it. Was "Win3.11" = Win3.1 +
Win32s, to your knowledge?
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:51:28 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:02:46 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:19:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Rooting a system is pretty meaningless without some way to access it.
>
>You're not thinking like a cracker. They do not come in the front
>door, as that is normally locked. One procedure is:
However, it helps if there is at least a door or at least
the perception of one.
[deletia]
>3. Telnet to that port and connect to your shell, running as whatever
> user the original daemon was running as.
This is the critical part which may or may not be present.
[deletia]
That is why a vulnerable telnet daemon is a cracker magnet.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 26 Jul 2000 21:48:11 GMT
[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (void) writes:
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:14:25 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>void wrote:
>>
>>whoops. I didn't notice that you specified swap. Sticky bit
>>keeps the text image in core.
>Are you sure? I used Google to try to find a reference one way or
>another. I found this:
>http://www.netshooter.com/ilug-cochin/archives/jan00/jan00-html/msg00004.html
>which seems to back me up, but it's not all that authoritative IMO.
I don't think it kept images on core; core was just too expensive.
It kept executables in *swap* which was a faster device than disk.
This is also what my old BSD 4.2 manual says.
>>Original sticky bit implementation only applied to directories
>>and executables.
The sticky bit was certainly *not* originally used for directories;
the sticky bit for directories wasn't introduced until BSD 4.3.
>I understand that. But the Solaris sticky(5) page describes its effects
>on non-executable regular files and on directories, and says nothing
>about executable files.
It has no longer any effect on executables; I'm pretty sure if *never* locked
them in memory; it just "saved the executable image in swap space".
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:51:18 -0500
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:07:48 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:35:42 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry, DC, but you just don't understand that the average consumer is no
>> >more going to seek out an patronize one of these little shops, than they
>> >are going to seek out an patronize a consumer electronics repair shop.
>>
>> The issue, though, is that it's out there, local to customers, and
>> available to them.
>
>No, that's not the issue. Refer back to the snipped bit about consumer
>electronics repair shops . . .
>
>> Now, do you suggest this same JoeAverage customer
>> would ever buy Linux?
>
>Yes, they would, when it comes pre-installed and pre-configured, on
>hardware integrated by the seller to run Linux.
This I have to disagree with. I have a hard time coming up with a
scenario for a home user that would purposely buy a Linux box over a
W98 box, even if the L box were $50 less. Can you build a scenario
for me?
>> Then Jedi can't really suggest these people would ever run Linux....
>
>Sure he can. *YOU* are assuming that pre-installed and pre-configured
>Linux boxen will never be made available on BB shelves. . .
I think it's a pretty safe assumption for the time being.
>> >Pre-built to run a specific OS, pre-installed with that specific OS,
>> >pre-configured, and sold by a major retailer, preferably with all of the
>> >basic applications they'll ever want to run, applications that are well
>> >known by friends or family, and that are compatible with the
>> >applications run by friends and family . . . that's what your average
>> >computer buyer wants.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
>And there is nothing to stop Linux from being the OS installed on the
>above system.
Except a total lack of demand. And consumer-level software. And
infrastructure support, aka handholders.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
