Linux-Advocacy Digest #60, Volume #29 Mon, 11 Sep 00 21:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? (lyttlec)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("David Sidlinger")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("David Sidlinger")
Re: How low can they go...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:50:56 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Pim van Riezen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On 8 Sep 2000, Loren Petrich wrote:
> [...]
> >You earned 4 trollpoints. You have defeated me and won another battle for
> >the Redmond Army of Righteousness. You will sleep well, dream well and
> >awaken the next day with a smile on your face, realizing you made the
> >world a Better Place!
>
> The jokes on you. Not only is Loren not a Microsoft fan, but he
> actually *is* a communist (OK, well, he's a socialist)! :-)
No. He's a communist.
The ONLY disagreements Loren has with mainline communists is what
particular tactics to use to achieve worldwide takeover.
As to the methods of actually running a communist world, enslavement
of dissidents, etc...he has no disagreement.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:21:22 -0400
Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Keith T. Williams" wrote:
> >
> > Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Keith T. Williams" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8pj6m5$l6j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In alt.destroy.microsoft Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's absurd to compare aggressive marketting and vendor
> > > > > > lock to wholesale destruction of the environment. Your post
> > > > > > is diversionary nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think happens to all the RAMs, Hard-disk, casing,
> > diskette's,
> > > > > CPUs that get thrown out when the next offering from the Dark
Lords
> > > > > require an upgrade?
> > > > >
> > > > > You think wholesale waste of the earth's resource feeding the
Redmond
> > > > > behemouth is good for the earth's environment?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nobody is forced to UPGRADE, if what you have works for you, keep
it.
> > >
> > > MS does indeed force you to upgrade if you want to keep getting the
> > > same functionality. That is one of the reasons why they are so evil.
> >
> > How does that work? I'm still using '95 (sr1), and still have the
> > functionality that
> > it had (yah, yah, i know...) out of the box... '95 hasn't degraded at
all,
> > it's
> > still as bad as it ever was (there you go), but I haven't felt any need
to
> > upgrade
> > to the latest and greatest. I admit to having put W2K on for a test (on
a
> > 233MMX/32M
> > junk machine... ) but it's off now and Corel Linux is in it's place..
> >
> Yes, but what of folks still on Win 3x? Have they not been forced to
> upgrade? BTW, I have begun to notice that a number of programs are
> now coming out for '98 only and not '95.
I must be very different then since I have not found any need to upgrade any
software since I fired up this machine (1.5yrs, & no re-installs!)
was trying to say here, Keith, is that suppose you need
> to use some MS program. MS is continually trying to force people to
> upgrade to its latest editions and thereby upgrade their HW. This is
> a well-known fact about MS, and is in contrast to companies like IBM,
> who have the philosophy of supporting your legacy SW/HW (to some
> extent) if you wish to do so.
>
> The latest versions of Office often will not work with the older
> versions. Therefore, if you wish to continue using Office, you may
> have to upgrade to the latest version. If you wish to run Win 2000,
> the HW requirements are astronomical. MS designed it that way on
> purpose. My brother recently had to upgrade his RAM from 64 MB to 128
> MB merely to run Powerpoint. Any OS that will not run a Presentation
> program with less than 128 MB is in sorry shape, indeed. When you go
Very sorry indeed, what was he doing with it? I know that the animation in
PP2000 sucks power like it was going out of style..
> the MS route, you are forced to spend more money for HW to get much
> less functionality than you would be getting with another OS. This
> resource wastage is on purpose.
>
> Win 2K will not be compatible with old SW or, supposedly, other
> versions of the OS. The purpose is to force everyone to buy a new
> version of the apps and to force everyone to move up to the new OS.
>
> MS has been totally complicit in the nonsensical situation whereby it
> is quite difficult to move your OS/apps from one Windows computer to
> another. MS doesn't want you to do that; they want you to buy a new
> OS/apps and all new HW. That is good for them and for the ISV's and
> HW folks who are in bed with them. MS' latest "anti-piracy" nonsense
> will make it so that the OS/apps are bundled with the machine. You
> want to move to a new machine, once again, you will have to buy a new
> OS/apps. It's slimy as hell.
> --
Can't argue with that part for sure... maybe it will trigger people into the
move to Linux... but not until Linux moves out of the hobbyist (minimal)
category
and into the consumer, that is a commodity.
> Bob
> Microsoft.com corrupt! Boot Chairman Bill? (Y/Y)
> Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:32:34 GMT
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Correction: The US posters do not only produce more arrogant and
> idiotic postings that all of the European posters.
So says you. Re-read the posts. You'll see who was being snobish
and not paying attention to anything at all but their own posts
<hint: it was the Europeans>
> They produce more of then that all other posters together,
That's because we have to repeat everything 5 or 6 times because
the Euros seem to spend more time reading their own words and gloating
about it than actually participating in the conversation.
> and I estimate
> that, in international groups like this, the amount of US bullshit is at least
> thrice the amount of rest-of-the-world bullshit.
Geez.. speak about arrogant, idiotic posts.
You should be their poster boy!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:40:26 +1000
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Every window has a title bar with buttons to minimize, close, etc, right?
> How about adding a button to pull up the task list? Then you wouldn't need
a
> task bar or access to the bare desktop to find your icons. You could also
> include items to navigate between your virtual desktops as well. Your
other
> desktops and your running programs would always be a button click away,
even
> if you are running an app "full screen."
A better way would be like OS/2 used to do it - hit both mouse buttons
together and you get the task list. It'd be a lot quicker.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:30:17 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ermine Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:#eC5fmDHAHA.249@cpmsnbbsa09...
> The fact of the matter is that WP CHOSE to not make a windows version for
> many years, and then, when they did, they built one that was 1) poor
> quality, 2) didn't fit the standard (still had to load there own printer
> drivers instead of using the ones supplied via the OS) either in interface
> or system utilization, and 3) was late (by about 4 years).
Four years late? What is your zero date? Windows 3.0 came out in 1990 and
WordPerfect for Windows came out in 1991.
WordPerfect for Windows did permit the use of the Windows printer drivers.
It also provided its own custom printer drivers the circumvented the use of
the standard Windows printer drivers for good reason. The prior Dos version
of WordPerfect provided support for far more printers than Windows could
handle by its own printer drivers available at the time. The printer
deivers for the Dos version of WordPerfect had finer control and took
advantage of more features of the printers than could the Windows printer
drivers. There were a number of third party and private drivers "written"
to handle printers for which there was no official support. There were also
third party drivers "written" to replace standard WordPerfect printer
drivers that had enhanced features that were not available in the standard
WordPerfect printer drivers. By permitting the use of the preexisting
WordPerfect printer drivers in WordPerfect for Windows was a resonable
reaction the the horrible support provided by Windows printer drivers. It
permitted support of drivers through the Windows printer drivers for who
were satsified with them and it also provided thier existing userbase to
continu using their existing printers that WIndows did not support and the
custom printer or third party printer drivers.
Another point here, is that Dos version of WordPerfect was still being sold
and developed after the introduction of WordPerfect of Windows, by providing
the use of WordPerfect priner drivers on the Windows version it maintained
compatibility with the Dos version so both could coexist in the same company
and they can exchange the documents and have them print identically
reguradless of the programs being hosted by Dos or by Windows.
This is not theoretical or belief based on something I read. This is
something I lived through, as a developer of "third party" and private
customized printer drivers for WordPerfect. What WordPerfect Corporation
did in that case was provide the users with a choice.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:36:57 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:38:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> Aren't things like the X server, the window manager, and xterm just
> applications? How about the Bourne Shell? What exactly is so different
> in Unix's approach?
Flexibliity, dependability, reliability, stability, and secuity.
There is no environment equivalent the the Windows single user interface
that is mandatory on every installation. We have a choice of shells and
windows managers. If big mistakes like those in the Windows user intervace
were made by the developers of one window manager or environment or shell,
we have the choice of switching to another that does not have the same
mistake built in.
That is why the C shell is still not as popular as the bash shells. Long
ago (before the universe began for Windows users), the C shell (csh) had
some serious problems, they have since been fixed and most shells dirived
from the C shell never had the problems; however, caution and good memories
still cause many unix users to shy away from them and use other shells.
With Windows as shipped shying away from bad userinterface design is not an
option.
Most of us don't use the Bourne Shell (sh) any more, we have seen the light
and are now using the Bourne Again Shell (bash) and ksh, csh, tcsh, ash,
ssh, zsh, etc.
>
> >
> > Some of us have Unix interface tweaks that have served us
> > across multiple Unixen, multiple microprocessors and/or
> > decade(s) of use predating any useful version of MS WinDOS.
> >
>
> Yeah, so?
So? Can you make the same claim for Windows? Can those who liked the
Windows 3.0 "look and feel" or even that of WIndows 2.x and spent time
tweaking it their way still use the same appearing environment in the latest
Windows? OR, do they have to settle for recreate the closest possible
imitation that the latest Windows can permit?
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:39:24 GMT
"Se=E1n =D3 Donnchadha" wrote:
> =
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:10:01 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> =
> >
> >How do you address the issue of the loss of control of the appearance,=
> >quality, performance, and behavior of the software to the whims of tho=
ses
> >who developed the rendering software AKA browser. How do you also add=
ress
> >the issue of the program's user interface going haywire should a minor=
> >upgrade via a service pack cause the renderer to no longer render the
> >program's user interface the way that the programmers of the program h=
ad
> >intended?
> >
> =
> What's there to address? You just described the normal relationship
> between platforms and applications.
No it isn't normal. The platform should *free* you to use your talents
and abilities. Not make you squander them on trying to guess what some
marketer thought he could con or force people into buying. That's why I
refuse to buy any OS that doesn't include a true command line interface.
HTML is good for turning out mediocre barely good enough products in
short time. At the cost of surrendering your soul to anonymous coward
------------------------------
From: "David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:41:04 -0500
sandrews,
Do tell, do you have *any* experience administering *any* OS in a real
enterprise environment at all? No OS that I have ever seen being used on a
large scale has offered anything close to that. When evaluating performance
from the previous year, our production NT machines bested Unix by 1.9
percent (99.8 vs. 97.9). I don't remember what the figures were for the
AS/400. Right now, we have a production Unix server that has been down for
a week. That puts it at 98.1% max for this year. Sure, Unix can achieve
greater than four nines, until you actually run something other that DNS on
it.
- David
"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8phk1h$it2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David Sidlinger"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Exactly my point. You would have to have access to kernel memory to
> > do it in NT, also. Personally, I don't like the everyone comparing
> > Windows 9x to any other OS. 9x was never meant to be a robust OS
> > (whoops, did I say something negative about MSFT? Maybe I'm not
> > blindly loyal to them after all). I think that you can really only
> > draw comparisons between Unix/Linux and NT (or 2000). 9x does not
> > have any type of security, for instance. Also, the level of expertise
> > required to run any Unix variant is far greater than the guy who just
> > wants to play Tiberian Sun. (Or whatever the latest craze is, I've
> > been out of that loop for a while). By the way, did anyone know that
> > Compaq is *guaranteeing* 99.99% uptime for its Win2000 Datacenter
> > servers?
> >
> > - David
> >
> >
>
> Big deal 99.99 is nothing, is that all the better it can do?
>
>
------------------------------
From: "David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:48:35 -0500
T. Max and "...monkeys",
I understand that I do not need a specially configured kernel or
anything else to run Oracle. However, companies interested in Oracle or any
other high-end RDBMS usually want to squeeze every TPM they can from their
systems. Red Hat implies that they have enhanced Linux performance enough
to justify a $2500 price increase. I am curious though. Has anyone
actually used this version of Linux, and, if so, do you think that the price
is justified.
Also, because I am not familiar with Linux or GNU licensing, I have
another question. If an individual did purchase Red Hat's tweaked Linux,
would they be able to install it on multiple servers with impunity?
Thanks,
David
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:03:20 -0500,
> David Sidlinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Let's say, hypothetically, that Red Hat sells 10,000 copies of the
optimized
> : OS. I think this is a fair conjecture, as many companies would like to
run
> : Oracle, and Oracle for Linux is free, so the relative cost of running
Oracle
> : on a Linux server is small compared with running Oracle on NT or Unix.
>
> Oracle on Linux != Free. Oracle lets you do *development* on Linux for
> free. However, to deploy production systems on Linux is subject to the
> same licensing terms as other platforms.
>
> You also do NOT need to "optimized" version. I've got a couple of Oracle
> dev machines in my office that were installed on a copy of RedHat that was
> on a burnt CD (I dl'd the ISO of RH 6.2).
>
> --
> Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
> jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:37:28 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:53:43 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Actually, to be precise, it was Win95 OSR 2.x that was the product in
> >> consideration, since the original Win95 didn't integrate IE. Also in
> >> consideration was the then-upcoming Win98. My argument still applies.
> >
> >So, then you agree.
> >
>
> I do? Are you sure? Whatever it was called, the then-current version
> of Windows had already had IE integrated. IE components had been
> documented as part of the Platform SDK. Applications taking advantage
> of them had already been released. Removing them would absolutely have
> damaged the product.
Yes, you did agree that Windows 95 the newst of that product line available.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
