Linux-Advocacy Digest #604, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] (.)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] (.)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:43:31 -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:
>
> > Mike Byrns wrote:
> > >
> > >>Re: Intel and AMD...
> >
> > http://www.aom.pace.edu/meetings/1999/INTEL1.htm
> >
> > Search for the following to find the paragraphs
> > pertaining to it...
> >
> > The 80286 was introduced in 1982, and we were
> >
> > And this statement is attributed to Gordon Moore
> > himself, and if you do work for them as you claim
> > and you do know the company so well, you've got
> > to know who he is.
>
> You fabricate more than anyone I've ever seen. Never did I claim to be
> employed by Intel. I have no idea where you got from.
I said did work for intel... from your statement.
Perhaps you sould check what you wrote...
http://x75.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=679006626&CONTEXT=971296710.751763482&hitnum=20
"but I, after having been a Intel and Microsoft systems
engineer and programmer for over a decade have no
recollection of AMD EVER making chips for Intel."
Any questions? You wrote that. I didnt fabricate
anything.
>
> > And in case that claim of yours is false, then
> > let me help you...
>
> That claim of YOURS IS false.
As proved... quite true.
>
> > Gordon Moore is currently Chairman Emeritus of
> > Intel, as in the past, he was one of the founders
> > of the company.
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Not only do you fabricate but you're a condescending
> little prick too.
Ah, I am correct, so I am a little prick... Sorry,
girls dont have one.
>
> > Is THAT a reliable enough source? I think the
> > guy who ran the company till Andy Grove took
> > over, much less also CO-FOUNDED it is reliable
> > enough that I am not even going to bother
> > scanning the pics. If you dont believe
> > the co-founder of Intel, then you wont believe
> > anything.
>
> Anything to get out of posting real proof. Add weasel to that list.
Posted proof. Posted corroboration. From the
co-founder of Intel himself.
>
> > Well Chris and Mike, hope that's enough proof
> > for you. It is for me (since I dont think there's
> > any higher one could go for verification other
> > than his or her god(s) or goddess(es) so I hope
> > it suffices :-).
>
> Look, you've not produced a shred of evidence that shows that AMD
> manufactured parts were sold under the Intel namplate. That article
> simply restates what everyone already knew -- Intel licensed the 8086
> and 286 masks to AMD and AMD made chips that they sold under the AMD
> nameplate. This was was done as Rex said so that GSA contracts could be
> honored -- you have to have competitive products purchased from
> different comanpanies on the schedule.
No - it states that when Intel couldnt keep up
with demand, they licensed the masks and had
the other companies do the work.
Re read the article.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:41:26 -0500
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s2bm5$osf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9TWE5.65867$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If not for that fortunate fact, that code would never have been
> > discovered, and you would have been saying that Microsoft would NEVER
have
> > done something like that. And no one could have proved you wrong. As
it
> > is, you're probably going to say "so what? Ancient history."
> >
> > So, when did the Microsoft leapord change its spots?
>
> Hey, I have a knife in my kitchen drawer at home. At any time, just by
> bringing it out, I could have used it against somebody.
>
> The important thing, however, is that I did not.
>
> Simon
>
Microsoft *did* use it against DRI (as well as Korean DOS and who knows what
else). They did it in the beta version, which is what the press was
reporting on at that time, of course. "Preview of New Windows Version!"
You know the types of articles that get written up in the trade mags.
Microsoft's scheme (illegal, by the way) had the desired effect of
generating false reports that the new Windows would not run on DR DOS. The
truth was that Windows ran better and faster on DR DOS. MS knew this, and
their response, as usual, was to try to destroy the competition through any
means possible, legal or illegal, ethical or not.
Hey, why try to actually make your product better than the other guy's if
you can just kill the other guy and be done with it?
jwb
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 06:53:04 +1000
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QS3F5.75233$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8s1ef5$aja$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I have to wonder what is so evil about displaying a non-fatal error
> message
> > based on an OS version.....
> >
>
> I would try to explain it for you, but long experience has taught me that
it
> would be almost certainly futile. You would simply shift focus, ignore
the
> message, resort to personal insults, or just plain deny that what they did
> was bad. No matter what, though, you would never admit, even to yourself,
> that Microsoft did something as rotten as this was.
Long experience has taught me that people as biased and hate-filled as you
appear to be aren't worth discussing with, as well.
I still have to wonder what's so evil about a non-fatal error message,
however.
> ------
> "This really isn't that hard. If you're going to kill someone there isn't
> much reason to get all worked up about it and angry -- you just pull the
> trigger. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We need to smile
at
> Novell while we pull the trigger."
> Jim Allchin (largely responsible for Windows NT), September 18, 1993, in
> reference to Novell's Netware threatening Microsoft's monopoly.
> ------
>
> Interesting language they use in Redmond, eh?
Bwahahaha. That's actually pretty tame from company execs for a company of
that size.
>From the above I can only conclude that a) the concepts of "metaphors" and
"euphemisms" are beyond your grasp or b) you really don't have a clue about
how people like that talk and what they mean when they do.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:47:36 -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!
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Dolly" == Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Which does not apply to Windows 2K which was the combination
> > discussed... only to NT4 with SP6 on... what... 4 different
> > server models with very limited configuration.
>
> _WRONG_. You even introduced the "off topic note" yourself and you
> did NOT discuss Windows 2K as part of the combination, NOR did
> Drestin.
>
> Here is where YOU introduced the topic of databases and C2 security
> in a thread that HAD been about AMD's supposed manufacture of chips
> under the Intel brand:
>
> "On another off topic note... guess what database/commerce solution
> manged to get C2 security? IBM's. MS has applied, but like their
> last attempt at C2 with NT, they will fail. YES, MS failed in the
> C2 rating for NT on a network, so they reapplied with no network
> card or modem to get the bogus rating they weasled out which is of
> course useless in the real world)."
>
> Number of times Windows 2000 was mentioned by YOU: _ZERO_
>
> NT was explicitly named as the operating system in question.
>
> Drestin's response was:
>
> >> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Guess which database solution managed to get C2 security? MS SQL 2000
> >> >> Guess what rating NT4 has ON a network: C2
>
> Number of times Windows 2000 was mentioned by Drestin: _ZERO_
>
> You are wrong when you claim that "Windows 2K was the combination
> discussed". You clearly do not remember how you yourself introduced
> your own topic.
>
> Established as fact is that MS SQL 2000 running on NT 4 connected to
> a network has C2 level security as determined by the United States
> Government.
>
> That satisfies what Drestin was claiming is so and refutes absolutely
> what you were claiming, specifically:
>
> "This clearly states that DB2 has it, that NT only has it if not
> networked and that SQL Server (MS) has applied for it but not gotten
> it."
>
> Your claim: "NT only has [C2 certification] if not networked"
>
> _WRONG_, proven here: http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no3/news/1284-1.html
> which was PUBLISHED ON THE SAME DAY as the article you were citing to
> back up your case.
>
> "The San Diego company?s lab, with Microsoft funding and NSA
> supervision, tested the NT 4.0 OSes on Compaq Computer
> Corp. uniprocessor and multiprocessor systems in networked and
> standalone modes."
>
> And wrong on a second level is the fact that when you said "This
> clearly states...NT only has it if not networked" with "This" being
> the article you referenced, yet the article DOES NOT contain any such
> claim. Read it again:
>
> http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no3/guide/1259-1.html
>
> There's absolutely no mention of what you say there is.
>
> Your claim: "SQL Server (MS) has applied for [C2 certification] but
> not gotten it."
>
> MISLEADING, because the article you cited was written in February
> 7th, 2000 and as such is obsolete information. Obsolete because on
> October 2nd, just over a week ago, but still BEFORE you made your
> claim, the publication you chose as your source reported that MS SQL
> 2000 had received C2 certification:
> http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no29/news/3049-1.html
>
> "SQL Server 2000 is the first Microsoft Corp. database management
> system to be certified at the C2 security level through the
> government?s Trust Technology Assessment Program."
>
>
> I think your demand that he should "eat his words" is out of line.
>
> > Far from what he or MS is touting it as, making it seem like the
> > certification extends to W2K - which it does not.
>
> As proven above with direct and unedited quotes, you are
> WRONG. Drestin does /NOT/ make this claim. As to whether Microsoft
> does, that's a separate claim entirely up to you to prove.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
Correct... I am in error and will gladly admit it.
Though it does bring an interesting point, that
resolution of a few long standing issues in NT were
supposed to be resolved by migrating to W2K.
Perhaps SP6 addressed those... dunno. If the many
attempts, failures and years it took MS to get
C2 certification on NT are an example, guess
people needing that certification are gonna
be stuck with NT for a while... hopefully it
doesnt take 5 or 6 tries this time.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:47:49 GMT
Dolly wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > How about pulling apart an old 286 or so. Check the
> > > keyboard controller and (less likely but possible)
> > > the CPU. Also some printers have intel chips that
> > > were fabbed by AMD. Notably some old IBM/Lexmark
> > > systems. Also some keyboards (inside the keyboard
> > > themselves) have control chips also Intel designs
> > > and copyrights, but made by AMD.
> > >
> > > Soon as the pics get back I will post them, but
> > > in the meantime, dig around, sure you'll find one
> > > or two if you have as much old hardware lying
> > > around as I do in my basement.
> >
> > AMD branded chips. Not Intel branded.
>
> Seem to have skipped the post with all the proof
> anyone could ever need. How odd is that? Well
> keep responding to the non-latest posts and
> pretend I didnt post more than sufficient proof.
>
> Or read my final post on the issue and you will
> see I am correct.
You mean http://www.aom.pace.edu/meetings/1999/INTEL1.htm? I'll quote:
IBM’s continued use of the Intel architecture for its PC line was once
again the most important design win. Several factors were important to
IBM in making this selection. These included the strengths of Intel's
microprocessor technology, development tools, and marketing support, as
well as cross-licensing agreements that allowed multiple manufacturers
to source these microprocessors. According to Gordon Moore,
"The 80286 was introduced in 1982, and we were given huge
forecasts. This was a new generation of products, and we had IBM using
several other things too. It looked like we would need more than we
would be able to make ourselves. So we ended up sourcing the 286
technology very widely. We had AMD in the United States, Fujitsu in
Japan, and Siemens in Europe. We did lots of sourcing. The actual demand
was about 1/3 of what we had been led to believe, so this turned out to
be a very competitive business. We essentially gave away the profits on
several generations of product."
Read that carefully. If Intel had sold the processors made by AMD how
could there have been competition? Just sell only the one's you built
:-) How could they have given away profits unless someone else was
selling Intel designs under the AMD or Fujitsu or Siemens name? So we
have contradiction and nowhere does it say that Intel sold AMD chips. I
repeat -- nowhere does it say that Intel sold chips of AMD manufacture
as Intel branded products.
The word "sourcing" turns up several times but that just means that
Intel licensed the design and other folks built and sold them under
their respective brand names, not under the Intel nameplate.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Date: 11 Oct 2000 20:52:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy David T. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>>
>> Please suck me and quit crossposting to groups that dont give a shit
>> about your petty-fag insinuated threats.
>>
> Your words are as empty as your tag. Coward.
"tag"?
Ahem. Come get me, bitch.
=====.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:54:18 -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:
>
> > Mike Byrns wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > How about pulling apart an old 286 or so. Check the
> > > > keyboard controller and (less likely but possible)
> > > > the CPU. Also some printers have intel chips that
> > > > were fabbed by AMD. Notably some old IBM/Lexmark
> > > > systems. Also some keyboards (inside the keyboard
> > > > themselves) have control chips also Intel designs
> > > > and copyrights, but made by AMD.
> > > >
> > > > Soon as the pics get back I will post them, but
> > > > in the meantime, dig around, sure you'll find one
> > > > or two if you have as much old hardware lying
> > > > around as I do in my basement.
> > >
> > > AMD branded chips. Not Intel branded.
> >
> > Seem to have skipped the post with all the proof
> > anyone could ever need. How odd is that? Well
> > keep responding to the non-latest posts and
> > pretend I didnt post more than sufficient proof.
> >
> > Or read my final post on the issue and you will
> > see I am correct.
>
> You mean http://www.aom.pace.edu/meetings/1999/INTEL1.htm? I'll quote:
>
> IBM’s continued use of the Intel architecture for its PC line was once
> again the most important design win. Several factors were important to
> IBM in making this selection. These included the strengths of Intel's
> microprocessor technology, development tools, and marketing support, as
> well as cross-licensing agreements that allowed multiple manufacturers
> to source these microprocessors. According to Gordon Moore,
>
> "The 80286 was introduced in 1982, and we were given huge
> forecasts. This was a new generation of products, and we had IBM using
> several other things too. It looked like we would need more than we
> would be able to make ourselves. So we ended up sourcing the 286
> technology very widely. We had AMD in the United States, Fujitsu in
> Japan, and Siemens in Europe. We did lots of sourcing. The actual demand
> was about 1/3 of what we had been led to believe, so this turned out to
> be a very competitive business. We essentially gave away the profits on
> several generations of product."
>
> Read that carefully. If Intel had sold the processors made by AMD how
> could there have been competition? Just sell only the one's you built
> :-) How could they have given away profits unless someone else was
> selling Intel designs under the AMD or Fujitsu or Siemens name?
They gave away profits because they had to PAY
AMD, Fujitsu, et al to make the chips for them
and drop their selling price since the market
wasnt near as large as predicted, netting them
a loss of profits. They gave away profits by
paying those companies more money to produce
the chips than it would have cost Intel themselves
to produce them.
> So we
> have contradiction and nowhere does it say that Intel sold AMD chips. I
> repeat -- nowhere does it say that Intel sold chips of AMD manufacture
> as Intel branded products.
>
> The word "sourcing" turns up several times but that just means that
sourcing means produced by. It is a variant of "out-sourcing"
or "jobbing out" in the more "slang" version. It means
Intel "jobbed out" production to them.
> Intel licensed the design and other folks built and sold them under
> their respective brand names, not under the Intel nameplate.
Wrong. As stated. Take a few years of business and
marketing and you will learn what "sourcing" means.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Date: 11 Oct 2000 20:53:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy David T. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Bowen wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> David T. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Jeff Glatt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >Aaron R. Kulkis has posted a total of at least 256 unique messages in
>> >> >comp.os.os2.advocacy during the month of September, 2000 on five related
>> >> >threads, none of which have anything to do with OS/2, OS/2 advocacy,
>> >> >computer software, or even computers:
>> >>
>> >> Your post is off-topic for COOA. Read the newsgroup charter you
>> >> worthless and clueless poor excuse for an alleged "OS/2 Advocate"
>> >> (whose primary mission appears to be to harrass and denigrate
>> >> remaining, active OS/2 developers. Are you working for Microsoft?)
>> >
>> >I have never harassed and denigrated OS/2 developers. Please delete
>> >this post or face the consequences.
>>
>> Brad Wardell is an OS/2 developer. Marty Amodeo is an OS/2 developer.
> Assuming for argument sake that they are active OS/2 developers, I have
> not harassed and denigrated them.
Have too, I saw. You cocksucking bucket o' mung.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:54:43 GMT
All we could do was laugh when we saw how much it costs if you have
more than 8 processors. Not that I have the resouces too but it I
still can't imagine paying anything for software let alone these prices.
9-16 $12,500
17-32 $60,000
33-64 $150,000
65-128 $360,000
>
> "For only the cost of media ($75 US) plus shipping, you can use the
software
> on an unlimited number of computers with a capacity of 8 or fewer
CPUs."
>
> From FAQ at http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/faq.html
>
> "You can use the Solaris 8 runtime environment at home or at work, for
> business or personal computing."
>
> That's an *unlimited* number of *business* computers for only
> $75. This is certainly *much* cheaper than W2K, which is $4000 for an
> andvanced server license. Now I'm not advocating Solaris, but your
> claim that it's more expensive that W2k is dead wrong. So why can't
> you be a man and admit when you are wrong?? Does it hurt your feelings
> to know you're not a very smart guy?? Tough shit....accept your lot in
> life.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:06:47 -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:
Here's another link
http://x86.org/articles/computalk/help.htm
Notice the 80386 part that states AMD started
their clone manufacturing for that line...
while they OEM'd Intel's 80286.
Looks like according to this site, AMD's clone
chips started with the 80386... guess AMD
was manufacturing for Intel during the 286
period, huh?
Dolly
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
