Linux-Advocacy Digest #801, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 03:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Astroturfing
Re: Real Linux Advocacy (Terry Porter)
Re: He yttrx...Tell me again about RAS and PSSP....... (.)
Re: Real Linux Advocacy (Terry Porter)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: He yttrx...Tell me again about RAS and PSSP....... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Real Linux Advocacy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (Terry Porter)
Re: Why Linux is great. (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:33:31 -0500
Where is your evidence that this study was paid for by Microsoft?
Or is your thinking that anything pro-MS must have been paid for by them?
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Here's a paid study which claims the cost of
> a Windows OS would be over $1,000 per
> copy post the breakup of Microsoft.
>
>
> http://www.actonline.org/pubs/remedies3.pdf
>
>
> Seems like I've said this before!
>
> http://24.94.254.33/Linux/intro.html
>
> Humm.
>
> I must be nostradomus!
>
> Charlie
>
>
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:30:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 10-22-00, 1:41:46 AM, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote=20
regarding Re: Astroturfing:
> Maybe i'm missing something here, but the article doesn't seem to say =
that
> MS is paying anyone. This Ralph Reed is. Nor does it indicate any=20=
specific
> connection between MS and Reed other than that Reed is a MS supporter.=
> Is there records of cash payments to Reed from MS? Records of MS=20
asking
> Reed to do this?
Oh yeah - you need proof - records - otherwise you can't say who's=20
paying for peole to work on MS's behalf.=20
> Besides that, do you really think $200 is all that much money to a=20=
mayor or
> republican party official? =20
Yes - in fact if they workd for the feds or state they'd be criminals=20=
for accepting a gift. That amount is substancial. =20
> It would hardly motivate anyone to do something
> against their will, but rather compensate them for their time. It's=20=
common
> practice to compensate people for time they might have otherwise used =
to
> make money elsewhere.
Funny - you say the person is being compensated for their time=20
advocating on MS's behalf (unlike yourself who works for free) but you=20=
question if MS is paying for the work that benefits them. Who are=20
supposed to be fooling?=20
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 Oct 2000 06:39:35 GMT
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:50:51 -0400, James E. Freedle II
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ssg7q$b33$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> James E. Freedle II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : I have been wondering, why use Linux?
>>
>> Because it's robust, standard-compliant, powerful, supports almost all
>> useful applications ever written, allows me to learn a great deal,
>> helps me to get my work done, behaves in a reliable and predictable
>> fashion, and causes me no problems at all.
>
>I can say the same thing about Windows. It works, and it is easy to work
>with.
A bit vague this "works" word dont you think?
I know Windows virii work, I know Exchange executes programs in emails, I know
that Windows works when it comes to generating $$$ for Microsoft. Is this what
you mean ?
>
>>
>> Now why would I want to use Windows????
>
>That is what I was asking about Linux.
>>
>> What would Windows give me, besides problems, that I don't already
>> have?
>>
>>
>> Joe
>Right now the only use for Linux for me, is to learn a little UNIX. I have
>to to UNIX at work to run one application, that I could easily rewrite for
>Windows. I have had problems with Windows at work, but I can attribute that
>to the IR department, and they probably know nothing about Operating System
>theory or design, and yet the muck up the system and expect it to work
>properly.
>I don't adovcate Windows or Linux, just the user. I want to be able to use
>my computer and get what I need done. I keep hearing that Linux will be the
>Windows replacement,
Where on earth did you hear that, not here I'll wager, as Linux will NEVER
be a Windows "replacement", how can you claim to write software, *and* believe
that nonsense ?
Linux is NOT Windows, thank God.
> but I see nothing that would backup that claim.
Thats because its a false claim, and one I've never heard before, personally
I think you fabricated it.
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 2 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: He yttrx...Tell me again about RAS and PSSP.......
Date: 22 Oct 2000 06:41:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sure have.
> And I know you do :)
> But yttrx hasn't not that 5L matters because I am talking about
> LINUX.
> But that has nothing to do with it. My question is how is IBM going to
> maintain RAS and interface with PSSP using LINUX NOT AIX.
> Example:
> Replace a redundant (N+1 if you will) power supply
> concurrently with client operations under REDHAT LINUX.
That would be a VM function, not a linux function. (VM is a kind
of operating system (some say falsely-so-called) which runs on an
S/390).
> Can't presently be done as far as I know because Linux doesn't yet
> support chrp in order to generate an SRN, which is how you know what
> power supply to replace, and how to tell the system to fence it (via
> pssp) and that you are going to replace it.
And as ive said, the point is absolutely moot. If you knew anything
about the way VM and IBM machines work, youd know that.
And besides that, the linux distribution that IBM is touting for its
largest publically available system already comes with a suite of
handy-dandy utilities that covers this.
And so does SuSe S/390, by the way.
> Aix already does that quite well by itself.
With very specific hardware, indeed.
> This is just one of the many items that a client will be giving up by
> running Linux on the box instead of AIX, or AIX 5L.
Actually they wont. See above.
> How about Concurrent Diagnostics?
> Try typing in diag on an aix screen and see what happens.
> Now try it under Linux.
Have you even looked at the ibm distribution?
I didnt think so.
> So now I've let him off the hook, but it doesn't matter because he had
> no answer. He doesn't even have a clue as to what I am talking about.
Actually claire, some of us have lives. I had a nice day today enjoying
mine, thanks.
I see you read usenet all day.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 Oct 2000 06:43:13 GMT
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 05:16:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:09:36 -0400, "James E. Freedle II"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>What the heck is a troll?
Your lucky, the master troll makes an appereance!
>
>In this group?
>
>A person who posts anything anti-linux.
Nope a person who behaves just like this false identity "clear_lying", study
her/his posts to COLA to see a real Wintroll in action.
>
>claire
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 2 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 02:58:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Win95 relies on msdos.sys being a certain size, because DOS relies on
>> >> msdos.sys being a certain size, and Win95 is a bundle of DOS 7 and Win
>> >> 4.0. "If you wish to boot into DOS, it will still be backwards
>> >> compatible", indeed. You *have* to boot into DOS to load Win95,
>> >> remember?
>> >
>> >Untrue, Neither Win95, nor the DOS that ships with Win95 rely on msdos.sys
>> >being a certain size. In fact, this is easily proven by simply editing the
>> >msdos.sys and removing the padding. There are, however, certain third party
>> >programs that rely on msdos.sys being a certain size, which is why the
>> >padding is there. To make those programs compatible with Win95.
>>
>> You are correct. Thanks for reminding me. Now, the question is, why
>> would Microsoft care if third party programs were broken in this way,
>> when all the other times a third party program is broken by Microsoft's
>> churn, it is considered the third party's fault?
>
>Microsoft makes the effort, that's the difference. Take the Lotus/NT SP6
>issue.
Glad to hear that Microsoft makes an effort at programming, but nobody
else does.
>The issue was clearly Lotus' fault. They went against best practices,
>the had several hacks that hooked too deep into the networking stack
>and when MS had to make a change (TCP syn predictability I believe was
>the issue), it screwed Lotus' poor programming. What'd MS do? Immediately
>pulled the SP, worked out the issue for Lotus (probably rewrote it for
>them) and then re-released SP6 as SP6a with the issue resolved.
>
>MS went above and beyond the call of duty when, IMHO, they shouldn't have.
>They could've taken that chance to bash a competitor and expose their
>poor coding for what it was, but instead they worked out a solution.
You seem to be confusing making a commercial product with some sort of
socio-political principle. Microsoft "made the effort" because it would
have decreased sale of their product if they hadn't. Just as Lotus
"went against best practices", because it increased sale of their
product. Microsoft, on the other hand, has been conclusively proven to
spend time and money trying to decrease sale of others' products. This,
in case you weren't aware, is illegal. Bad programming is not.
>> The very fact that a DOS file must be handled specially in order to make
>> programs compatible with Win95 entirely undermines your argument that
>> Win95 does not include DOS.
>
>Not really. It's common sense, actually... oh that's right, you're incapable
>of that. Let me explain: Win95 can run dos programs. You can also reboot
>into "DOS compatability mode" which acts just like old DOS did and lets
>DOS apps do their business without interference from Win95. Some of these
>older apps relied upon MSDOS.sys being a specific size.
Let me try one final time to make this clear. Windows95 is Windows 4.0
running on top of DOS 7.0. The painfully minimal functionality provided
by DOS itself is beside the point, as is the wondrous things that
Windows 4.0 does in terms of memory management, et al.
The crux of the problem is the distinction between the concept
"operating system" as a technical definition and the product purchased
by computer owners wishing to avoid having to program their hardware
from the ground up, also known as an "operating system". The first is
an exclusive definition; the things which an operating system does, and
therefor the definition of what is or is not an operating system, is an
academic issue of computer science. In the second instance, the term
"operating system" is an inclusive definition: it includes whatever the
consumer calls or thinks of as an operating system, which is generally
everything that is software that is required to run applications (which
are also software, thus the confusion which MS takes advantage of in
bolting applications into Windows in order to prevent competition.)
>> (Of course, such a position is baseless,
>> anyway, considering Microsoft has already provided evidence of their
>> deception in this manner, through the emails from the period that have
>> been made public.)
>>
>> http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
>
>"Fact" statement. It reads like a little kid in the principals office
>attempting to explain why it's Bobby's fault that he had to hit him.
Thank you for your scholarly legal opinion. Would this be why Microsoft
folded, once it became clear that Caldera was on firm ground claiming
that not only was Win3.1 used to destroy the market for DR-DOS, but so
was Win95? Once it was revealed that Microsoft's duplicity in calling
Win95/"Chicago" an 'integrated product' was going to be revealed, they
settled for a potentially monstrous (but unrevealed) sum, to prevent the
matter from going before a jury?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:00:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Microsoft goes to great lengths to fix broken programs.
They also go to great lengths to break competitor's programs, according
to Microsoft's internal communications.
>You can see for
>yourself by looking in the compatibility section of the win.ini file (or is
>it system.ini, I forget which). This is a list of programs which, when run,
>turn on certain "compatibility flags", which are really just re-enabling
>bugs that were present in older versions of Windows that those programs
>relied on to work correctly.
And this is "great lengths"?
>> The very fact that a DOS file must be handled specially in order to make
>> programs compatible with Win95 entirely undermines your argument that
>> Win95 does not include DOS. (Of course, such a position is baseless,
>> anyway, considering Microsoft has already provided evidence of their
>> deception in this manner, through the emails from the period that have
>> been made public.)
>
>Are you blind? How could you *POSSIBLY* get the idea that I don't think
>Win95 includes DOS? Look up in the quoted area up there where I
>specifically said "Neither Win95, nor the DOS that ships with Win95...".
>
>I made no such argument. You're twisting of the context of things is
>getting tiring, as usual.
So you do accept the fact that Win95 was a violation of the consent
decree, and anti-trust law, as well?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: He yttrx...Tell me again about RAS and PSSP.......
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:01:19 GMT
You just proved that you know absolutely NOTHING about the topic.
Read below.....
On 22 Oct 2000 06:41:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Example:
>> Replace a redundant (N+1 if you will) power supply
>> concurrently with client operations under REDHAT LINUX.
>
>That would be a VM function, not a linux function. (VM is a kind
>of operating system (some say falsely-so-called) which runs on an
>S/390).
Idiot....
I was talking RS/6k but we can talk S/390 (CMOS 9672) if you wish.
Replacing an N+1 power supply HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with VM or
MVS for that matter.
The Support element and HMC console (you know the one with the pretty
green bar, or in this case pretty red bar) across the screen, runs
OS/2 Warp.
VM is an operating system.
>
>And as ive said, the point is absolutely moot. If you knew anything
>about the way VM and IBM machines work, youd know that.
No it's NOT a moot point and yes I do know quite a bit how IBM
machines work, and you obviously don't.
>And besides that, the linux distribution that IBM is touting for its
>largest publically available system already comes with a suite of
>handy-dandy utilities that covers this.
You're digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
>And so does SuSe S/390, by the way.
>
>> Aix already does that quite well by itself.
>
>With very specific hardware, indeed.
Stop changing the subject, we are talking AIX and IBM.
>> This is just one of the many items that a client will be giving up by
>> running Linux on the box instead of AIX, or AIX 5L.
>
>Actually they wont. See above.
WRONG....
>> How about Concurrent Diagnostics?
>
>> Try typing in diag on an aix screen and see what happens.
>> Now try it under Linux.
>
>Have you even looked at the ibm distribution?
Have you?
YOU HAVEN"T A FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
And you still haven't answered one single question.
>> So now I've let him off the hook, but it doesn't matter because he had
>> no answer. He doesn't even have a clue as to what I am talking about.
>
>Actually claire, some of us have lives. I had a nice day today enjoying
>mine, thanks.
Your an idiot, who lies and tries to imply that you have some type of
experience with things that you don't. You expect that people won't
challenge you, but I did, and YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT trying to bullshit
someone who has 20 years of experience.
Go back to playing with Tin and your shell account. I'll bet you're
some script kiddie Linux wannabe.
I'm not wasting anymore time with you.
You have been EXPOSED as a BULLSHIT ARTIST.
****PLONK****
claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:02:04 GMT
dork.
claire
On 22 Oct 2000 06:43:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>Nothing of any value
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:06:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Make no mistake; when running, Win95 runs on top of the DOS operating
>> >> system. Confusing this with the "DOS box" shell program which Windows
>> >> supports is a mistake made by rank amateurs exclusively.
>> >
>> >Max, you are again out of your league. Quoting from Unauthorized Windows
>> >95, by Andrew Schulman (you know, Caldera's chief technical witness in
>their
>> >trial):
>> >
>> >Page 43:
>> >
>> >"Employing the real-mode DOS code does not diminish Windows 95's status
>as a
>> >genuine operating system."
>>
>> LOL.
>
>We're talking about the statements made by Caldera's technical expert here.
>Not some MS propaganda. We're talking about a book that pulls no punches
>and details the internals of Windows 95 in detail, in a manner not approved
>by MS.
That doesn't mean every statement is correct in every context.
>Are you saying Andrew Schulman, a noted expert in operating systems and a
>technical witness for Caldera is wrong?
No, I'm saying your interpretation of Andrew Schulman's statement, in
the context of our discussion, is wrong.
>> "In a sense, you lock cloners out of the WIN4 market, but we only
>> benefit from this if you increase the price of WIN4 to
>> be that of WIN3 + DOS. Otherwise, we've destroyed the DOS market under
>> WIN4, revenue-wise, so this is a phyrric
>> victory."
>>
>> Gordon Letwin, March 8, 1991
>
>And what does this have to do with the fact that Windows is it's own OS, and
>that it does not run "on top of" DOS, but rather DOS runs as a client of
>Windows?
Nothing, I guess. Windows does run *on top of* DOS. You're continued
efforts to confuse the "DOS box" with the underlying DOS which Windows
relies on is just as unrelated, IMHO.
>What does this have to do with the fact that you claimed the statement below
>and were wrong?
>
>> >> Make no mistake; when running, Win95 runs on top of the DOS operating
>> >> system. Confusing this with the "DOS box" shell program which Windows
>> >> supports is a mistake made by rank amateurs exclusively.
Why do you think I'm wrong? What, besides Mr. Schulman's statement
(who, by the way, seems to have had his eyes opened up a great deal
concerning Microsoft's behavior over the last eight years, if you
broaden your reference) leads you to believe that the statement is not
factual?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 Oct 2000 07:00:48 GMT
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:38:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>dork.
>
>claire
>
>
>On 21 Oct 2000 20:08:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>
<plonk> *for being repetitiously boring ... bye "clear_lying" :)
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 3 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 Oct 2000 07:02:29 GMT
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:28:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>oops...
>
>sorry..
>claire
"claire" is a he, in case anybody is wondering.
>
>On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:03:11 GMT, "Idoia Sainz"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> He speaks from his experience, as I do. I think you Linux guys are
>>> conditioned and brainwashed by some psycho penguin lover :)
>>
>> She, please :-)
>>
>>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 3 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
