Linux-Advocacy Digest #603, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! (Chris Wenham)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!) (Chris Wenham)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Simon Palko")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Chris Wenham)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Jim Cameron)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~! (JoeX1029)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Chris Wenham)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] ("David T. Johnson")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (Pan)
Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!) (Dolly)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] ("David T. Johnson")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Chris Wenham)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:10:41 GMT
>>>>> "Dolly" == Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
I said I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, and it clearly is. I'd
actually scanned through that document this morning during my second
search for evidence, but I missed that paragraph.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
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 20:12:08 GMT
Dolly wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > Dolly wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > No one has supported you that I've seen. No I don't agree. AMD never fabbed Intel
> > chips with the Intel brand. Period.
>
> http://x66.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=679539628.3&CONTEXT=971283837.539295811&hitnum=9
>
> Uh huh. I pointed this out to you before. You responded
> to it even. Yet you try to ignore it just to say
> I am wrong. You try to pretend this post doesnt exist
> just so you can keep up with your "ooh, you're wrong"
> responses.
>
> Guess I am right. There was another post corroborating
> my statement... and soon a pic or two when I get
> around to developing and scanning one.
If you would have taken the time to read you would know that Rex does NOT back up your
claim that AMD ever produced Intel branded sold as Intel by Intel. They have built
clones for ever -- some even from the original 8086 and 286 masks. These chips were
sold
under the AMD nameplate. Not Intel.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:14:44 GMT
>>>>> "Roberto" == Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just run multiple X servers. Of course you can't copy&paste or move windows
> from a desk to the other (but I think there is a way to do that... moving X
> sessions between servers, I need to think about it).
QNX claims that its Photon windowing environment can do this. All
displays can be considered part of the same space. One of the
examples they give is that you might walk up to a desktop in a
warehouse with a PDA and "drag-n-drop" a window off the Desktop
display and onto the PDA's. It can not only cope with the change in
resolution, but it can also cope with a change in color depth by
dithering the output on the fly.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:18:38 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:42:21 -0400, Simon Palko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> It was the Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:44:16 GMT...
> >> ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > > Is of course Linux.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Nope. The future is BeOS!
> >> > >
> >> > > Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
> >> > > incapable of.
> >> >
> >> > Provide a stable, reliable GUI?
> >>
> >> I don't know which reality you live in, but in mine, Linux has a
> >> stable, reliable GUI which I use every day.
> >>
> >> Mind you, it's stable and reliable even though I run the CVS version
> >> of most of the components. For people who simply run Helix GNOME or
> >> such, I imagine the stability is yet better.
> >
> >I don't think I've ever seen someone refer to XF86 as "stable" before.
>
> Compared to what?
Compared, like I said, to other commercial X servers.
> By Unix standards it certainly has it's problems. However, that
> is not the domain of this comparison.
True. However, given that no Linux distro I know of ships with an X server
besides XF86, I'd say that a "stable, reliable GUI" isn't one of the things
it provides. It's one of the things it can have, but at extra expense.
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
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!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:17:15 GMT
>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dolly wrote:
>>
http://x66.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=679539628.3&CONTEXT=971283837.539295811&hitnum=9
>>
>> Uh huh. I pointed this out to you before. You responded
>> to it even. Yet you try to ignore it just to say
>> I am wrong. You try to pretend this post doesnt exist
>> just so you can keep up with your "ooh, you're wrong"
>> responses.
> If you would have taken the time to read you would know that Rex does NOT back
up your
> claim that AMD ever produced Intel branded sold as Intel by Intel.
Actually he does:
Dolly Wrote:
>> Really? That's weird... AMD has MADE chips for
>> Intel when Intel couldnt keep up...
Rex replied with:
> This was a long time ago.
He effectively acknowleged what Dolly claimed.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:18:54 -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:
>
> > 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
>
>
> I said I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, and it clearly is. I'd
> actually scanned through that document this morning during my second
> search for evidence, but I missed that paragraph.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
I always found it ironic that such alliances are
usually what started all the "bitter wars" afterwards...
like IBM and MS... Intel and AMD... MS and anyone...
etc...
Kinda funny if you think about it.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:18:58 GMT
Followups *are* reset.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John R. Mashey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 10 Oct 2000 05:39:57 GMT
<8rua3d$1ur$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Sigh, I'm not sure why this dicussion is deemed useful for 7 newsgroups.
>Can any of the posters explain why this has
>anything to do with comp.arch, comp.protocols.tcp-ip, comp.lang.java.advocay,
>and especially alt.conspiracy.area51?
>--
>-John Mashey EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DDD: 650-933-3090 FAX: 650-851-4620
>USPS: SGI 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy., ms. 562, Mountain View, CA 94043-1351
>SGI employee 25% time; cell phone = 650-575-6347.
>PERMANENT EMAIL ADDRESS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
comp.arch: because Intel/Win9x is The Architecture For Tomorrow(tm).
comp.protocols.tcp-ip: because Microsoft has embraced and extended it
as The Protocol For Tomorrow(tm).
comp.lang.java.advocacy: because Microsoft has embraced and extended it
as The Language For Tomorrow(tm), with a note
that C# is The Language For
The Day After Tomorrow(tm).
alt.conspiracy.area51: because it's occasionally complained that Linux users
worried about security are overly paranoid about
hackers and little green men, and the Melissa
and ILUVYOU viruses are a feature of Outlook.
:-) :-) :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random non-seriousness here
------------------------------
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 20:19:23 GMT
Dolly wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > Dolly wrote:
> >
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Ah yes... MS says they will stop doing something.
> > > > > They dont. MS lies and says they did stop. They
> > > > > didnt. MS finally publicly admits they never did,
> > > > > and the answer is... "ooh, just turn it off" by which
> > > > > I presume you mean the machine - good answer for
> > > > > a server... and since if you install TCPIP and NOT
> > > > > NetBIOS, it still installs NetBIOS code that is
> > > > > hard-coded into the stack I know it's not NetBIOS
> > > > > you mean I should turn off.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dolly - we have all challenged you - respond please: Document this NetBIOS
> > > > vulnerability you are talking about. I say it doesn't exist and challenge
> > > > you to prove your silly claim. DO it or shut up.
> > >
> > > Damn - I think I already provided a DOZEN websites
> > > that indicate the vulnerability - a number of which
> > > state that it's installed irregardless of whether
> > > NetBIOS is bound to TCPIP.
> >
> > You have not. You've only stated your opinion. No point.
>
> You didnt see a single link I posted? Should I fire
> up Deja again? THEY seem to have archived them. Perhaps
> it's just you need a better news server since you seem
> to be missing so many posts.
What I need is for you to post some real evidence instead of hand-waving about what
some other non-authority wrote or article retention. The fact remains that port 139
is NOT open when NetBIOS is not enabled over TCP/IP. Simple setting. One
checkbox. Included in the setup scripts on all my NT and 2000 workstations or
unattended installation so it's by default:
[Networking]
InstallDefaultComponents=No
[NetAdapters]
Adapter1=params.Adapter1
[params.Adapter1]
INFID=*
[NetProtocols]
MS_TCPIP=params.MS_TCPIP
[params.MS_TCPIP]
DNS=No
UseDomainNameDevolution=No
EnableLMHosts=No
AdapterSections=params.MS_TCPIP.Adapter1
[params.MS_TCPIP.Adapter1]
SpecificTo=Adapter1
DHCP=No
IPAddress=<deleted>
SubnetMask=<deleted>
DefaultGateway=<deleted>
DNSServerSearchOrder=<deleted>
WINS=No
NetBIOSOptions=2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Cameron)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:02:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm trying to be impartial here but I feel the urge to quote a French aeronautics
>engineer (whose name I forget) - "Elegance in design is not achieved when there is
>nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away".
Just for the sake of it, it was Antoine de St. Exupe'ry.
jim
--
http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/people/jim/
"Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting" -The BOFH
------------------------------
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 20:20:35 GMT
Dolly wrote:
> Chris Wenham wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "Dolly" == Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > >> No one has supported you that I've seen. No I don't agree. AMD never
>fabbed Intel
> > >> chips with the Intel brand. Period.
> >
> > >
>http://x66.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=679539628.3&CONTEXT=971283837.539295811&hitnum=9
> >
> > > Guess I am right. There was another post corroborating
> > > my statement... and soon a pic or two when I get
> > > around to developing and scanning one.
> >
> > It's a corroborative statement, but it also does not include any
> > proof, references or reasons to consider Rex as an authority. Rex
> > could also be mistaken.
> >
> > It would be best to produce that picture, but even then it's value
> > would only be equal to how this newsgroup sees your integrity. You
> > _could_ doctor the picture.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chris Wenham
> >
> > P.S. I would not be surprised if AMD did manufacture chips with the
> > Intel brand in the past, I've even spent several hours searching for
> > evidence ever since you claimed it. But I haven't found any such
> > evidence, even from non-authorative sources.
>
> 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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:21:35 GMT
Followups trimmed back.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Simon Cooke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:19:54 GMT
<uqzE5.160789$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Mike Byrns" <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote in message
>news:LjyE5.125555$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Um, where can I find a comprehensive X Window System programming site like
>MSDN?
>
>If you find one, let me know. I wouldn't mind writing a freeware X client
>for Win2k.
I suspect it's already been done; you might try compiling XFree86's
source code using Windows NT and Visual C++ at home.
There might even be a FAQ on it at
http://www.xfree86.org
although I haven't looked lately. (Note that it's a *lot* of source.)
>
>Simon
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 11 Oct 2000 20:22:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~!
never mind, dont think it will work. i might still TRY, but im pretty
doubtfull
------------------------------
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!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:23:28 GMT
>>>>> "Dolly" == Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I always found it ironic that such alliances are
> usually what started all the "bitter wars" afterwards...
> like IBM and MS... Intel and AMD... MS and anyone...
> etc...
> Kinda funny if you think about it.
Not really. The only companies Intel (and MS) could turn to were
exactly the kind of companies best equipped to become their
competitors.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
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 15:23:04 -0500
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s1ef5$aja$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9TWE5.65867$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8s05hl$1vc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:g3ME5.61377$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > You're referring to the kernel, of course, and you're right. Win32,
> > > > properly speaking, is only the kernel. But the kernel by itself,
> > without
> > > > the accompanying DLL's produced by the OTHER 27 million lines of
code,
> > is
> > > > pretty useless. Still, you're right --I should have said "Windows",
> not
> > > > "Win32".
> > >
> > > No, Win32 is NOT the kernel. The kernel is the kernel. Win32 is a
system
> > > that sits on TOP of the kernel.
> > >
> > > > At Microsoft, that's *every* department's job. Ever heard that
story
> > > about
> > > > Microsoft inserting some code into Windows that displayed false
error
> > > > messages if it detected that it was running on any DOS other than
> their
> > > own?
> > > > You do know that it's true, don't you?
> > >
> > > Only for the Beta, oh Mr. Magic Munchkin.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> > The code was still there in the release version, kiddo. It was
disabled,
> > awaiting only the setting of a single bit to enable it at any time in
the
> > future.
> >
> > The code was encrypted, obfuscated, and self-modifying, and it included
> > logic that attempted to disable any debugger software that was trying to
> > step through it. It disabled Microsoft's own debugger, of course, but
> there
> > was a superior debugger on the market that was immune from the steps it
> > took. 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?
>
> 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.
======
"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?
jwb
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:32:05 -0400
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.
------------------------------
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 20:30:52 GMT
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.
> And in case that claim of yours is false, then
> let me help you...
That claim of YOURS IS false.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:33:14 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Todd wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Many real world benchmarks have already been done with regards to Linux and
> Windows 2000.
>
> Windows 2000 has shown itself to outperform Linux is almost every benchmark.
> Even Linux' traditional strong points such as OpenGL performance is
> outclassed by Windows 2000.
You mean like in the tpc benchmark, on identical hardware, Tux on RedHat
handled 4-5 times more transactions than IIS on w2k? These simulations
aren't over extended periods, so stability isn't an issue, but anyone
who tells you that w2k is more stable than linux probably sells w2k or a
product that uses it.
Also, whoever said that OpenGL performance is a strong-suit for linux?
--
Pan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:33:29 -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
Subject: Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Dolly" == Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> CTRL-ALT-[Plus/Minus key] can be used to switch resolutions in XFree
> >> on the fly on all platforms.
>
> > Here's a question... other than selecting only
> > certain pixel depths when configuring (or edditing)
> > the config file, is there any way to change
> > those?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Also, while /technically/ the mentioned keystroke combination changes
> resolution, someone else was also right when they said it really only
> changes the viewport resolution. This is kind of a user interface
> issue, since when you change the resolution of the viewport, the
> virtual screen is still the same size and you must pan the viewport
> around the virtual screen. It doesn't attempt to scale the windows
> currently open.
>
> I also don't know of any mechanism that supports multiple resolutions
> on multiple virtual desktops like BeOS does. But I have seen X cope
> with heterogenous resolutions on a multi-head system.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
Thanks Chris,
Dolly
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:36:04 -0400
"." 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.
------------------------------
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 20:34:37 GMT
Chris Wenham wrote:
> >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Dolly wrote:
> >>
>http://x66.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=679539628.3&CONTEXT=971283837.539295811&hitnum=9
> >>
> >> Uh huh. I pointed this out to you before. You responded
> >> to it even. Yet you try to ignore it just to say
> >> I am wrong. You try to pretend this post doesnt exist
> >> just so you can keep up with your "ooh, you're wrong"
> >> responses.
>
> > If you would have taken the time to read you would know that Rex does NOT back
>up your
> > claim that AMD ever produced Intel branded sold as Intel by Intel.
>
> Actually he does:
>
> Dolly Wrote:
> >> Really? That's weird... AMD has MADE chips for
> >> Intel when Intel couldnt keep up...
>
> Rex replied with:
> > This was a long time ago.
>
> He effectively acknowleged what Dolly claimed.
Rex was wrong too.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:36:30 -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:
>
> >
> > 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.
Dolly
------------------------------
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!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:39:10 GMT
>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris Wenham wrote:
>>
>> > If you would have taken the time to read you would know that Rex does NOT
back up your
>> > claim that AMD ever produced Intel branded sold as Intel by Intel.
>>
>> Actually he does:
>>
> Rex was wrong too.
Maybe. I addressed your claim that nobody backed up what Dolly said,
not whether either of them were right.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
