Linux-Advocacy Digest #1, Volume #29 Fri, 8 Sep 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Metcalfe on Linux (John Arebir)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Epson 460
Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!! ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 15:18:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>
>Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>
>> >Long live Baroque! ;-)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Actually, I listen to some Baroque stuff too. It's too
>> bad that there isn't a little more 'new' Baroque style
>> music coming out ;-).
>
>Have you noticed how some of the works of Vangellis has quite a baroque and
>classical quality to it. Chariots of Fire and Pulsar both are compositions
>that although they take advantage of some modern intruments are in that
>style. Then his Conquest of Paradise has much in common with Mars:The
>Bringer of War by Holtz.
Ah, that's the one I was trying to think of. Mars the
Bringer Of War has been used in metal and rock music
extensively. I can think of two just off the top of my
head (and three or four others that no one would recognize).
Am I Evil (Diamondhead, covered by Metallica)
Bare Bones (Overkill)
OK, to address your point. You are right. There are a
few artists that use the Baroque and classical styles in
modern music. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of
people that take them seriously, because a lot of that
type of music is used in movies. People see it as 'movie
music' and don't realize how truly musical it is. I can
sit in a dark room and listen to any of the Star Wars
soundtracks and just be amazed at the instrumentation and
the emotions brought on even without thinking of the scene
the music played in. But when you listen to the music
seperately, and appreciate it on its own, it definitely
opens up a new dimension to the movies.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:56:57 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> Your ass = product without IE
> >> Hole in the ground = program which doesn't run
> >>
> >> When you've learned the difference, try again.
> >
> >Do you know anything about software development, Mr. Devlin? NO. YOU
DON'T.
>
> In point of fact, I do.
>
> >Until recent releases of Gecko, there was and has been no other
> >componentized solution for software developers to use for an HTML
rendering
> >surface. Ergo, developers used IE.
>
> You're not going to point out the benefits of the monopoly's product by
> pointing to a lack of competition.
>
> >Removing IE breaks the apps which DON'T RUN AFTER IT IS REMOVED.
> >
> >Do you have a clue?
>
> So don't remove the parts that break the apps; just everything else.
The appeals court said you don't remove anything.
> And don't feed me a line of BULLSHIT that this would be the whole of IE.
> I don't write software for a living, but I'm not stupid. If the apps
> need some part of IE, then obviously they should be labeled "Only for
> use with the Win98 with integrated IE platform."
And this benefits consumers HOW?
>Of course, any
> consumers who purchased the Win98 without IE would be free to install
> IE, and that should provide precisely the same system, shouldn't it?
> You're not saying Microsoft doesn't know how to update DLLs when you
> install a product, are you?
>
> (Yes, I know I'm fantasizing, ....
Now your making some headway into reality.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:05:55 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> >Make up your mind. First you ask why I aren't using it, then you ask why
I
> >am using it?
>
> If you'd given reasonable answers to either question, we wouldn't have
> to keep going back and forth. Stop squirming around. If you know you
> can't keep up the argument, just take your lumps and say goodbye.
I have, the question keeps changing...
>
> [...]
> >Feeling schizophrenic today Max? We? Have you got a mouse in your
pocket?
>
> Thanks for the chuckle.
You're welcome, they're often few and far between on Usenet
>
> [...]
> >> It is apparent that the use of the underscore as a leading character,
or
> >> any character, does not break DNS itself at all, as DNS is a 'general
> >> database', not just a hostname resolution system.
> >
> >It is apparent that the use of the underscore is not permitted in *any*
> >place in a hostname.
> >Which is the point of the updated RFC, to permit *any* character to be
used
> >as part of a service locator record.
>
> This is precisely the discombobulation I was expecting you to get hung
> up on. The various RFCs state that you can use any character in a DNS
> entry. But this is not the same as the restriction on hostnames, in DNS
> or anywhere else. Read the appropriate sections of the RFC's again (not
> just the DNS ones, but the 'Host Requirements' ones) and you'll see what
> I mean.
Yes indeed. A hostname may not have an underscore, but....
The updated RFC was to clarify that you can use any binary character in a
service location record (which is what _ldap_ is, *not* a hostname)
>
> >"Occasionally it is assumed that the Domain Name System serves only
> > the purpose of mapping Internet host names to data, and mapping
> > Internet addresses to host names. This is not correct, the DNS is a
> > general (if somewhat limited) hierarchical database, and can store
> > almost any kind of data, for almost any purpose."
> >
> >i.e no longer just hostnames.
>
> You mistake, just as they were trying to forestall in this very
> paragraph, the use of DNS as a host resolution mechanism, and DNS as a
> hierarchical database.
>
No mistake, they just see DNS as no longer for locating hosts, instead for
locating any host or generic service. Perfectly reasonable, and locating
services is practically identical to locating hosts.
>
> > " The DNS itself places only one restriction on the particular labels
> > that can be used to identify resource records. That one restriction
> > relates to the length of the label and the full name. The length of
> > any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets. A full domain
> > name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators). The zero
> > length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree,
> > and is typically written and displayed as ".". Those restrictions
> > aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any
> > resource record."
>
> Did you get further down, where they said that an application (client,
> they call it) of the DNS hierarchical database might place additional
> restrictions? You probably also misunderstand the concept of 'proposed'
> standard. This just means it was looked at seriously; it doesn't
> necessarily mean that any one is even considering it for 'real' standard
> status. I don't know whether this RFC has any support behind it,
> perhaps it does, even outside of Microsoft. But there's absolutely
> nothing in there that changes the standard for the definition of *host*
> resource records in DNS, because it doesn't mention or impact the
> standard which defines what a legal *host* name is. At least not as far
> as I can tell. Check RFC 2600 if you want; from my reading, an
> underscore is not an allowed character at all, and numbers and letters
> are the only valid initial character.
Yep, exactly. But you're confused between a host record, and a service
location record (SRV) - which BIND does support by the way, it just doesn't
support (evidently) service names which don't conform to the naming
conventions established for hosts (because it would seem that it doesn't
distinguish between a host and a service record). (Long and poorly
formatted sentence I know). The more generic naming standard you referred
to above should probably apply to service location records, but in BIND at
least doesn't appear to. _ldap_ is an illegal hostname (true) but legal
service location record. Which was the purpose of the proposed RFC - to
clarify the issue (or so it would seem to me)
>
> >A locator system - which is exactly what DNS is designed for yes?
>
> No. DNS is designed as a general hierarchical database. Its primary
> (and, really, only major) implementation is the Internet DNS system used
> for host resolution. This isn't quite the same as the 'locator
> service', WINS, that Microsoft is pretending to replace DNS with, but
> its close enough that they've been trying to confuse the two since 1995.
OK, it's a general hierarchical database *which* the primary use for is to
locate hosts. (Or services)
>
> But if you're going to use that DNS system, the Internet DNS system, one
> of the rules is that you follow the standard for hostnames in host
> resource records. Another is that you don't play games with
> interoperability to decrease the autonomous authority of any implementor
> of your product.
True, "_" is still not allowed in a Windows 2000 hostname, but it is
permitted as a service location record.
>
> >>
> >> A) Microsoft is practicing purposeful interoperability, again
> >
> >Debatable. Why they chose to use _ldap_ instead of just ldap (or even
> >msldap) is a bit of a mystery to me, perhaps to ensure that there would
be
> >no possible conflict with valid hostnames, who knows.
>
> Oh, yea, that could be it, sure. Then again, maybe they just
> gratuitously ignore every rule they can to enhance interoperability
> problems on their monopoly product, to encourage everyone to do things
> their way or no way. Then they can start changing the rules more often,
> to kill the competition.
>
> >> B) Stuart Fox is making assumptions about Internet standards
> >
> >I haven't assumed anything.
>
> You have assumed that DNS is DNS.
Pretty valid assumption really...
>Its a typical assumption, I'll give
> you that. It was still an assumption. And considering you posted the
> very text which should have clued you in to this issue, I'd say it was
> quite a bad assumption to make.
>
> [...]
> >Explain to me exactly how you can monopolize without, um, being a
monopoly?
>
> You can't, but that's because the way you ask it is a word-game, not a
> serious question. You can attempt to monopolize without being a
> monopoly, obviously, and that's a violation of the same law that makes
> monopolization illegal (but still doesn't make 'a monopoly' illegal).
> You figure it out.
The way I ask is a word game? Isn't monopolizing the goal of all capitalist
organisations - to maximise market share? I would have thought that
Microsoft is a perfect capitalist organisation - almost 100% market share.
Last post before the weekend, if you want any response, or to continue to
attempt to skewer me on the altar or interoperability, you will have to wait
until 8:30 am GMT.
Cheers, have a good weekend
Stu
------------------------------
From: John Arebir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Metcalfe on Linux
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 12:09:01 -0400
I have posted this before...and will again. This is a true real-world
situation....
Very few people posting to this group have real evidence of a REAL
WORLD application to compare NT and Linux.
Not me. I am in the middle of it all.
Our company has a Linux based system comprised of 6 applications. Of
course, we have a Win32 Client part to each of these apps that
connects to our Linux box which does the real work. BTW: We could not
sell this application without a Windows front end a few years ago,
hence the Win9x/WinNT client side to our app.
The Linux based system took 2 programmers 2 years to finish. That's 4
man years. BTW. I am one of the two programmers.
Our company was purchased at about the same time the buyer (now parent
company) had an NT product ready to deploy. They have had 5
programmers working for 5 years and they have ONE of the 6
applications ready.
That's 25 man years for 16% of a total (comparable) system.
For up to 50 simultaneous users:
We run our 6 Linux based applications on ONE PII 350 with 128Mb RAM.
There ONE application requires 6 (yes SIX) NT servers to run.
The MINIMUS REQUIREMENTS for EACH of the SIX servers:
PIII 450 + 256Mb EACH.
Guess what. The one NT product does not yet have all the features our
(comparable) product has. The one thing that they had on one
application over ours took me about two weeks to add to our product.
Guess what else. The NT based product's install program contains as
many lines of code as our TOTAL server side.
Guess what else. Their support staff for their 20 clients is the same
size as ours. We have been supporting over 150 clients for several
years.
Guess what else. Our profit margin has dropped from a nice 40% to a
measly 20%. (Much of this is our cost for the NT Sever Licenses and
hardware).
This is the kicker, the NT-based system has had more down-time in EACH
client than ALL of our 150 clients combined over 2 years. BTW: This
system IS mission and time critical.
So no one will EVER convince me that there is better performance, less
down-time, lower cost of ownership in NT 4.0.
BTW: Preliminary benchmarks have shown that Win2K does perform about
30-40% better so we will might be able to drop one of the 6 servers
out of our NT-mess.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:08:24 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> 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?
>
> See, there, you've done it again.
Hold on, you made a statement with no apparent context or meaning, I know
from reading some of your other posts this is a common technique of yours.
Can you explain what the statement "Microsoft's own SMS can't even get it to
work reliably.", and what exactly you meant by it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 16:29:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Loren Petrich
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 8 Sep 2000 07:15:20 GMT
<8pa3m8$bkl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>>> Also, let's get to some really fun stuff, like demonstrating that
>>> Linux is a Communist conspiracy for the purpose of destroying capitalist
>>> software such as Microsoft's.
>>If you can name a dictator-for-life who enslaves people to work
>>on Linux, then you'll have something there.
>>Until then, it's a volounteer effort.
>
I'm assuming the following is tongue-in-cheek... :-)
> Why Linux might be called a Communist conspiracy:
>
>* It is shared, rather than having some owner who demands payment for the
>right to use it. This alone is a clear giveaway. Linux is intended to
>promote a Communist model of software development, so as to make the
>Western world more receptive to a Communist takeover.
Heh...yeah, the black helicopters all run Linux. Everyone knows this;
that's why the tin hats are so effective and everyone in the know
puts giraffes in their bathtubs.
>
>* Its creator, Linus, had lived right next to the then-USSR, and he could
>well have been recruited by the KGB to sabotage the Western software
>industry with deliberately underpriced software.
Oh no! Say it ain't so! :-)
>
>* A leading Linux company is Red Hat -- why not some other color?
Well, lessee.
Green Hat sounds like a nursery. ("Get your baby gardenias now!")
Black Hat is right out.
White Hat might have worked.
Yellow Hat sounds silly.
Blue Hat? Naaah.
Chartreuse with Pink Flecks and small Purple Polka Dots Hat?
That might have trouble fitting on a business card.
>
>* Open-source developers have to be paid somehow in order to keep coding,
>and could they have been paid by the KGB and its successors to do so?
Hmmm...maybe the KGB has infiltrated corporate America.... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- or even Microsoft
------------------------------
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: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:26:40 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> That's what's in GIF right?
> >
> >Yes, and unix's "compress" and many other programs were already using
LZW.
> >Then LZW was patented, there was much concern, but company that was the
> >patent holder professed that it would not seek royalities from prior use
of
> >LZW or any new non-commercial use of LZW. Guess what? They went back on
> >their promise a step at a time. One by one they started to enforce their
> >patent against pre-existing commercial usage of LZW. They enforced it
> >against freeware uses of LZW. Compuserve (the developers of the GIF
format)
> >was concerned but was promised by the patent holder that all GIF uses of
LZW
> >would remain free. Then the patent holder started demanding royalities
from
> >developers of software that could work with GIF files. Then they started
> >causing trouble for BBS's and other archives of GIF images.
> >
> >That is why GIF is nolonger directly supported by most image processing
> >software.
>
> I see it the other way around. When they said they wouldn't seek
> royalties from any existing implementations, I think they thought that
> first, that would only mean 'back-royalties', and everyone would
> cheerfully fork over cash to continue to use it. Then, they thought
> that maybe someone would pay for it for new uses, if they prevented the
> old stuff from being sold. Finally, they realized that you can't screw
> a free market, and gave up. GIF is widely used because LZW encoding
> makes it real small, but the need for a license for image manipulation
> software means it won't be easily exploited by free riding.
>
> The rest of the world uses JPG.
>
The U.S. Patent Office was to provide inventors with a limited time monopoly
on their invetions so that they could share information reguarding the
inventions without frear of being shutout of the "market" by big money.
This was to foster rewarding inventors for their work and foster sharing
ideas to lead to even more inventions by that inventor and others. After
the inventor had a far chance "time wise" to profit from having a monopoly
on the invention but after that the invention would become public domain.
In some ways patents in the 1800's were to inventions what OSS is to
programming today.
What I don't understand is, given this background. I don't see how this
makes it right for a person or organization to patent the inventions or
developements of another; thereby, being granted a limited time monopoly on
the efforts of another, inspite of the fact that the invention or
development took place years or even decades before and may have be in wide
spread use already for years or decades.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Epson 460
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:42:43 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jeepster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pa5a5$ft2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thanks for you trouble m8....
>
> I think the best method is to get another printer and be aware next time!
> LOL
That would be for the best.
>
> Damn win-devices..... ;-)
I concur.
>
> Still, its a good printer, it'll go nicely with my old 486 which my
daughter
> will need for her school coursework soon....
>
> Thanks again....
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8p98ml$64v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Jeepster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8p91oj$7ad$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > ooops
> > >
> > > I meant 480......
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jeepster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8p8t40$55m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone got a Epson 460 working with Linux..... I have sussed
that
> it
> > > is
> > > > a soft/Win-printer, so, ummm.... I'm stuck with using it with Win
> 98....
> > > but
> > > > I'd like to use it with Linux..... any suggestions... I have tried
but
> > it
> > > > wont respond to any drivers.... ;-(
> >
> > Yes, it is a winprinter. I have looked for a solution for you but have
> come
> > up dry. (Epson's website is horrible to work through! but there are
worse
> > out there) If you have an local network, could you install the Epson
480
> on
> > a Windows box configured to offer the printer as a share? Perferably
> > appearing as a Novell NetWare IPX/SPX server and attach to it from you
> Linux
> > client. I don't know the control codes you would need to communicate to
> the
> > printer control printing on that unit though.
> >
> > There are some more complex options for you that could work, but first
can
> > you run a PCL or PS emulator on the Windows box that you can control
from
> a
> > batch or script files or run as an emulated printer?
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!!
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 16:40:03 GMT
> * It is shared, rather than having some owner who demands payment for the
> right to use it. This alone is a clear giveaway. Linux is intended to
> promote a Communist model of software development, so as to make the
> Western world more receptive to a Communist takeover.
What? One party commitee planning and controls everything?
Sounds far away from the anarchist mentality as witnessed in the Linux
community!
> * Its creator, Linus, had lived right next to the then-USSR, and he could
> well have been recruited by the KGB to sabotage the Western software
> industry with deliberately underpriced software.
Living in a country (Sweden) thats next-door to Finland, and knowing
something about the Finnish mentality (and anti-communist pathos), you would
be truly lucky to get out Finland alive saying something like that!
> * A leading Linux company is Red Hat -- why not some other color?
Eh?
> * Open-source developers have to be paid somehow in order to keep coding,
> and could they have been paid by the KGB and its successors to do so?
You do seem to missed one or two points about open-source havent you?
/IL
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 12:48:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>If there were any - they were destroyed by superior marketing and their own
>stupidity.It's a dog eat dog world, come to terms with it.
"Superior marketing" is just the way the "I don't know how to compete"
dogs do it. Superior products don't need it, and superior business
acumen doesn't use it. Free markets are *competitive*, and not a
con-job; deal with it.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
