Linux-Advocacy Digest #520, Volume #29 Sun, 8 Oct 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! (Lou Nigra)
Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("John S. Giltner, Jr.")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("John S. Giltner, Jr.")
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: To all you WinTrolls (JM)
Re: The Power of the Future! (JM)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Colin R. Day")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Gergo Barany)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("JS/PL")
Re: SE is simply unstable!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("JS/PL")
Re: Secure Trusted Linux ("Nigel Feltham")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lou Nigra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: 08 Oct 2000 15:13:55 GMT
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 10:51:27 -0500,
> Tom Elam, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:03:43 GMT, Tom Elam wrote this reply to Charlie Ebert
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>But that growth spirt in the teenage years is a REAL KILLER!
> > ^^^^^
> >
> >Why can't your mighty, all-powerul, Linsux box even run a spell-checker?
> >
> >HUH?
> >
>
> It's allways amusing to see a spelling flame with a spelling error...
>
Definitely amusing and BTW, it was verys clever how you misspelled
"always" for ironic effect :-)
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:15:50 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:55:14 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
>
> aye means yes.
I knew that, I just thought that mine was more apropos.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> Marriage, n.:
> >> The evil aye.
> >
> >Not the evil I do?
> >
> >Colin Day
> >
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "John S. Giltner, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:54:21 -0400
I do not think he was trying to compare a dumb terminal with a 32 bit OS API.
I believe he was trying to point out the level of effort to write a program
emulating these. You would think that it would be easier to write a program
emulating a "dumb terminal." However it is not simple , it is difficult. His
point was " If writing a dumb terminal emulation program is difficult, just
think how much more difficult it is to write a program to emulate OS API." In
fact which OS API it is does not matter. Most API's are not as well documented
as most think, and Microsoft (either on purpose or by accident) has left quite
a few thing undocumented that their own product use. In most cases the
features that MS use perform better that the documented features, which is why
MS products tend to perform better on Windows that other vendors products.
This has been proven in court.
As for "poorly architected, archaic terminal emulation system". Lets wait 30+
years and see what people think about your "modern, 32 bit OS API".
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rpt0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8rpciu$isp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Sounds to me like WINE's developers don't know their arses from their
> > > elbows. Win32 is perfectly usable -- you just have to take the time and
> > > energy to understand it.
>
> <SNIP: diatribe about how poorly implemented VT100 is/was>
>
> > And this was just for a terminal emulator.
>
> So you're attempting to compare a poorly architected, archaic terminal
> emulation system to a modern, 32-bit OS API?
>
> Pretty weak.
>
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: "John S. Giltner, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:55:00 -0400
I do not think he was trying to compare a dumb terminal with a 32 bit OS API.
I believe he was trying to point out the level of effort to write a program
emulating these. You would think that it would be easier to write a program
emulating a "dumb terminal." However it is not simple , it is difficult. His
point was " If writing a dumb terminal emulation program is difficult, just
think how much more difficult it is to write a program to emulate OS API." In
fact which OS API it is does not matter. Most API's are not as well documented
as most think, and Microsoft (either on purpose or by accident) has left quite
a few thing undocumented that their own product use. In most cases the
features that MS use perform better that the documented features, which is why
MS products tend to perform better on Windows that other vendors products.
This has been proven in court.
As for "poorly architected, archaic terminal emulation system". Lets wait 30+
years and see what people think about your "modern, 32 bit OS API".
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rpt0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8rpciu$isp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Sounds to me like WINE's developers don't know their arses from their
> > > elbows. Win32 is perfectly usable -- you just have to take the time and
> > > energy to understand it.
>
> <SNIP: diatribe about how poorly implemented VT100 is/was>
>
> > And this was just for a terminal emulator.
>
> So you're attempting to compare a poorly architected, archaic terminal
> emulation system to a modern, 32-bit OS API?
>
> Pretty weak.
>
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:55:37 -0400
Joseph Mrozek wrote:
> But I bet you don't get metered phone calls, do you? Think yourself
> lucky you don't live in the UK. I'd give anything to be able to pay a
> monthly subscription and nothing else. Wanting it COMPLETELY free is
> just plain greedy.
The ISP's get money from the ads, much like much of American TV.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 15:04:47 GMT
On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 09:39:44 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>What has this have to do with the price of a Sunday paper? All this talk
>lately about ram consumption. Why? If you don't have 128 mb's of ram in your
>machine by now you don't take c o m p u t e r u s e v e r y s e r i o u s
>l y, DO YOU?
>
In that case, do you want to buy me some ram?
/\ _______ /\
/ \ /jmrozek\ / \
/ \/ @ \/ \
\__m-net.arbornet.org_/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 15:04:48 GMT
On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 10:51:27 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Tom Elam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:03:43 GMT, Tom Elam wrote this reply to Charlie Ebert
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>But that growth spirt in the teenage years is a REAL KILLER!
> ^^^^^
>
>Why can't your mighty, all-powerul, Linsux box even run a spell-checker?
1:^^^^^^^^2:^^^^^^^
>
>HUH?
3:^^^
>
1: mistake
2: deliberate?
3: not even a word.
His spelling mistake was a one-off typo in quite a large post. You
made three in two lines. Now who's the one who can't run a
spell-checker?
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 12:08:47 -0400
Lars Träger wrote:
>
> Bob extended and embraced, more proof he's a paid agent provocateur of
> MS.
>
In that case, he's probably an argent provocateur (note the spelling).
Colin Day
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 12:20:55 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Dolly wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Only problem is, according to IDC, Windows numbers
> > are slipping backward... ie: -3%, -15%, -10% (9X/ME,
> > IIShit, NT/2K) or perhaps the second one was -13%
> > on iDC and -15% on some web server monitoring
> > and stats page... and declining.
>
> You're going to post a link to back that claim up right? I'd be interested to see
> their sources and methodologies and the sites sampled. I think it's funny that
> with that kind of news to report, none of the media outlets have picked it up.
> Sounds like bullshit to me but I'll retract that when that link is posted.
www.IDC.com - you can buy your own membership.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gergo Barany)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: 8 Oct 2000 16:21:12 GMT
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Microsoft's bogus .NET 'platform'
>
> Head -> Sand
>
> It's not bogus, it will revolutionize application development and,
> in the long term, multiplatform application development.
Yes, I'm sure it will. But since that development will not be done
in ISO C, please stop the crossposts to comp.lang.c. Thank you,
followups set.
Gergo
--
Help stamp out and abolish redundancy and repetition.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 12:23:25 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Sam wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:03:43 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Is of course Linux.
>
> Exclusively ? I think not!
>
> >The power of Linux is of course the GNU/GPL.
>
> It may also be it's weakness.
>
> >Does everybody agree that Linux has the best desktop? NO, HELL NO!
> >Is Linux still growing? YES HELL YES!
>
> From zero it's all up from there
> <snip>
>
> >How fast is Microsoft growing on that hill top? 1%.
>
> If Microsoft kept growing at the rate it did for the last 5-10-15-20
> years (pick one) it would soon be, not only the total IT industry,
> but the entire economy. Obviously not sustainable
>
> >
> >How fast is Linux growing? 5 - 7 % per year for almost 8 years.
>
> From zero it's all up from there
>
> <snip>
>
> >Does Microsoft make hardware? Hardly, NO. That Microsoft mouse or
> >keyboard is subcontracted out.
> >They don't make anything but software.
>
> AMD don't own a fab shop, does that make them not a threat to Intel ?
>
Really? That's weird... AMD has MADE chips for
Intel when Intel couldnt keep up... what do you
think the little M AMD meant? MANUFACTURED by
AMD. I have a bunch here they made for Intel.
It's part of what gained them access to the
Intel x86 architecture - making a bunch for
Intel when they were in the bind.
Dolly
> <big snip due to boredom>
>
> Sam
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 12:29:17 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Dolly wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Only problem is, according to IDC, Windows numbers
> > are slipping backward... ie: -3%, -15%, -10% (9X/ME,
> > IIShit, NT/2K) or perhaps the second one was -13%
> > on iDC and -15% on some web server monitoring
> > and stats page... and declining.
>
> You're going to post a link to back that claim up right? I'd be interested to see
> their sources and methodologies and the sites sampled. I think it's funny that
> with that kind of news to report, none of the media outlets have picked it up.
> Sounds like bullshit to me but I'll retract that when that link is posted.
Here's one link
http://serverwatch.internet.com/netcraft/200009netcraft.html
IIS had made 34% at one time... check the back links.
Steadily declining (thank god!!!) Every month a little
more downhill. I think you can still check Jan 1999
directly on Netcraft's page...
For the rest, go buy your own idc membership and
have fun finding it. (ie: the link would do no
good till then, I dont have membership, it was
a "co-worker's" in another office, he printed it
for me, and I have no reason to disbelieve him
since everything seems to point to it being right
(like ServerWatch, etc)...)
Dolly
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 12:26:10 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:J%_D5.27546$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Microsoft's bogus .NET 'platform'
>
> Head -> Sand
>
> It's not bogus, it will revolutionize application development and,
> in the long term, multiplatform application development.
>
> Have you read anything about it? Of course not. You're content
> reading Slashdot for all your news.
>
> > involves ensuring, according to
> > unicat, who's opinion I'd trust more than yours because I've never read
> > anything he wrote, that XML is going to be used predatoraly by Microsoft
> > to replace the more widely supported HTML presentation of Internet
> > documents.
>
> Again, always the conspiracy. MS is always out to destroy the world.
> Give me a break. You idiots remind me of the Lone Gunman on X Files,
> but you have less talent.
>
> Microsoft supports the growing movement of XML and XSL for formatting
> and stylizing data over every medium (including the web and internet).
>
> This is nothing new, and it's no conspiracy by MS, this is what people
> and corporations are demanding. They're tired of having 1500 different
> ML's, they want one specific one that is all encompassing. MS only does
> things that people want and will make them profit. It's simple
> capitalism 101.
>
> HTML will never go away, and will be maintained as a legacy language.
>
> > >> and then putting your applications on the server and using a thin
client
> > >> to get to them. The XML langauage lets web pages have "dynamic"
> > >
> > >That's only a small piece of .net.
> >
> > Yes, whatever someone says to criticize it, that always seems to be the
> > response. Interesting, considering how vaguely the thing is defined.
>
> .NET is much more than just serving applications over the Internet. When
> you learn to read, you should read the specs, it's pretty amazing all
> the stuff MS is doing.
>
> >
> > [...]
> > >> in other words, MS has reinvented Java and Java clients.
> > >
> > >Except that .NET isn't limited to one language. [...]
> >
> > No, its just limited to one vendor. Guffaw.
>
> Not really. If you read the spec, you'll know this is an ignorant
statement.
>
> -Chad
He only reads about things after making completely asinine statements like
the ones above. Trust me, right at this moment he's feverishly scanning the
internet seeking out some spin control for his asinine comments. When and if
he finds nothing to back up his asinine comments he will proclaim that he
"Doesn't care" and has no time for the "ankle biters" who ask him to back up
his asininities.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: SE is simply unstable!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 16:32:07 GMT
I believe it's $149, but there is also an upgrade path from any
version of Windows for approx. $99.
Windows isn't free. I don't think that is a surprise to anyone.
Neither is Autocad, Catia or AIX for that matter.
Linux is essentially free.
So?
The desktop public (most likely to be running Win98 as opposed to
Win2k) is still not dumping Windows and going to Linux.
Maybe if you gave it away for free and then had a $20.00 rebate form
inside, people might at least try it.
claire
On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 22:22:58 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 00:16:55 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>
>>It is a full system and identical to the full version in every way
>>except one. Only requirement is that you own a previous version of
>>Win98. As long as that is satisfied, you can do a scratch install if
>>you want.
>>
>>claire
>>
>>
>>On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:13:32 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 15:12:48 GMT,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> brought forth the following words...:
>>>
>>>>Windows ME upgrade (upgrades Win98 to Me) $49.95 in Sundays NY Times.
>>>>
>>>>Claire
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 15:02:36 +1000, Chris Sherlock
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ummm... I don't know if you've compared the prices of Windows ME against
>>>>>Mandrake Linux yet, but the prices are *very* different.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>How about comparing a full system, not an upgrade.
>>
>
>The point being that the price is predicated on the ownership of a previous
>release. Whereas the Linux price, wasn't. So how much is the price for WinME
>with no prior license?
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 12:51:20 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Lars Träger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Lars Träger wrote:
> >
> > > In the last years Apple has made the logo much bigger than before. Now
> > > Macs are still used and quite recognizable in movies, but the logo is
> > > often taped over. If Apple would pay "Big Bucks" to get Macs in the
> > > picture, wouldn't they ask that the logo were recognizable?
> >
> > Moives need props. Macs have been awarded for their design. It makes
sense
> > they'd appear in movies sans the icon - the icon being covered indicates
the
> > producers did not want to provide free advertising but they did want the
mac
> > as a prop.
>
> Tell that to the people saying Apple pays "Big Bucks" to get Macs in
> movies, and that no moviemaker would put Macs in if they didn't get
> paid.
I agree.
Apple makes an excellent computer "prop". Like those cardboard TV's down at
the furniture store.
On another front, since hardly anyone uses them, it's much easier to pass
off a bogus GUI for the movie viewer to follow. Some of them are quite
ridiculous. Like the one where the "runner" logs onto the internet and the
"chaser" sitting at his own computer suddenly knows the location of the
runner, complete with a real-time satellite video feed of said runner (1500
miles away). Then just by coincidence there's 40 secret troops in complete
uniform and weaponry ready to chase the runner who's (by some incredible
stroke of luck) located just a block away from them.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Secure Trusted Linux
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:56:07 +0100
Seems like a good idea as afterall it will only create an extra classified
distro and will not need to have any effect on existing distributions so
system administratiors can then decide to either chose a distro they already
know and get on well with or the new distro with classification certificate
depending on the exact use they are putting it to.
Don't forget thought that it will probably be the fist PC operating system
to get a proper sucurity certificate as the windows NT one only applies
until you add a network card which makes it invalid for server use.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
