Linux-Advocacy Digest #821, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Elections and W2K Data Center (T. Max Devlin)
Point of Sale Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why. ("Mike")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (David M. Butler)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
A Question about the Free Software Foundation (A Humble Coder)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Gallup site down, Call Microsoft support (lyttlec)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Tired O'Shills)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Elections and W2K Data Center
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:30:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Hmmm...
>
>Election.com pulled off an online election in Arizona which was legally
>binding and hopes to eventually expand to national elections online.
>
>Bill Gates is becoming more and more interested in politics.
>
>Election.com is switching to Win2K datacenter server designed by Bill Gates'
>company.
>
>Seems like there might be something to this.
>
>;-)
>
>Maybe some anti-ms zealot should run with this set of circumstances.
>
I think we'll all just sit back and laugh. Opponents of on-line
elections couldn't have wished for a better choice, and most people who
want on-line elections are probably as deluded about Microsoft as you
are. Public debacles like this, if its true, will only serve to open
some of their eyes.
--
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: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Point of Sale Linux
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:35:05 GMT
Interesting title.
Microsoft is point of sale yet Linux isn't.
If you go buy a car, you don't do it from a
simple magazine ad. You don't just
pick a car out of a magazine and then
call the car dealer on the phone and
order delivery.
So why do that with an operating system?
With Linux you can test drive a product
before you buy it. In fact, they've eliminated
a step as you don't even have to buy it to
get a full distribution of Linux "Debian".
And you'd never buy a car unless you could
look under the hood and see what the engine
looks like.
Well, the Microsoft car has the engine
compartment hood welded shut and
smoothed over.
With Linux you can see the source code,
if you know what your doing, just like
with the car!
But you can't test drive Microsoft nor
look under it's hood to see how it's made.
All you can do is read a magazine article
and buy it "POINT OF SALE" and hope
for the best.
That sucks and that's why I use Linux.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:37:50 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike wrote:
> >
...
> > If I gave you an API, and it did everything an operating system should
do,
> > then with the exception of exceeding its capabilities in some way, is
there
> > any way that you could learn the implemetation of the underlying system?
> > Let's assume here that the system doesn't crash, and that you're
constrained
> > to using the API. Then, I think the question boils down to, "Is there
> > anything that the OS API can do that the encapsulating API can't?"
> >
> > ... The point is that I have no
> > differences in my code to handle Win98 and WinNT/2000. So, from my
external
> > viewpoint, it walks like an OS, and talks like an OS...
>
> OK, is Java an operating system? Java code runs on various systems. Java
> is NOT an operating system. The "Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck"
> argument is too simplistic for this analysis.
>
> Just because Windows pretends to be an operating system does not mean it
> is one. For that matter, Windows programs never run on NT, they run in a
> Windows subsystem of NT.
Point taken, but it seems to me that the distinction between OS and API gets
pretty blurry when you have to go through the API to get to the OS. In a
strict sense, yes, the Win98 API isn't the OS, but in a more generic sense,
the API and the underlying OS together become the OS.
In the strict sense, I suppose we'd have to strip off any API layer. In
Unix, I think of the C API as the OS, but someone who uses Pascal, or
Fortran, and sees a different API would probably disagree. So, I'm left
wondering if any of us ever really see the OS, or if we just see what's
exposed through some arbitrary API. If that's the case, then the last (and
probably the only) API I ever interacted with is probably DOS, where I often
resorted to direct int21 calls to get things done. I never make calls like
that any more - they all go through some kind of high level layer, if not in
the compiled code, then certainly in the high level C code that I write. So,
what's the difference? Why should I care if Windows, or any other API, is
the OS?
With regards to NT, it seems like you're making the same argument as Win98:
since everything runs under a Windows subsystem, the NT API that comprises
the interface to the OS isn't really the OS. If that's the argument you're
making, then what makes NT an OS? Is it just the kernel underneath
everything that's the real OS?
Again, in the strict sense, maybe so. But to me, the overall API I have to
work with becomes the working model of the OS. In Unix, it includes X. In
Windows, it's the API. Yeah, yeah, it's too simplistic. Sorry about that,
but it works for me.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:46:36 -0400
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Hey. That's an excellent point.
> Linux stat's are showing a massive Microsoft beating
> and YET they have had a smaller percentage of Linux
> users come in and stat for them.
>
> This means the figures for Linux's growth are even
> greater than posted. How much greater is anybody's
> speculation but certainly greater than that posted.
>
> Very good.
Uhm. Ouch. My head. What the hell did you just say??!?! I'm having
difficulty discovering where you arrived at that assumption, and even
greater difficulty deciphering your explaination...
D. Butler (ouch...)
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:39:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:20:56 -0400, "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Did this response go through one of those language translators by chance?
> >It's not making a whole lot of sense.
>
> Maybe he's been hanging around jedi?
>
> claire
It only took you an hour.
I'm surprised.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[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 20:43:29 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> No, Barett was suggesting and talking about a method to make Windows
work
> >> better with DOS, and in so doing make Windows "bound" to DOS.
> >
> >Good grief. You're either illiterate or utterly dishonest.
>
> Well, we did, in fact, already know this, Weevil. In all fairness,
> opening up a response with an ad hominem attack is not good form, though
> I can scarcely fault you for pointing out the obvious. Still, I think
> you'll see that removing this vitriol only enhances your argument:
In this case, I really am not concerned with showing "good form."
Funkenbutch is a shill, and an unusually dishonest one at that. And by the
way, calling him that does not constitute and ad hominem attack in this
particular instance (though it was ad hominem in the article you replied
to).
Also, it would be impossible to enhance this argument. There *is* no
argument. You can't enhance the truth.
> >The only evidence Caldera didn't have was a videotape of the programmers
> >actually typing in the code, complete with dramatic zooms in on the code,
> >while Silverberg, Ballmer, and Gates stood in the background, cackling
and
> >sticking voodoo pins in a shrink-wrapped box of DR DOS. And even with
that,
> >I suspect you'd still try to defend them somehow.
>
> Show me the law that says its illegal to cackle and stick voodoo pins in
> your competitor's package? :-)
LOL!
Why does a request like that seem out of place in a Linvocate's article but
not in a Winvocate's?
> >Caldera had more than enough evidence to prove their case. That's why
> >Microsoft settled out of court for such a huge amount.
> >
> >And no, I have no proof that it was really a huge amount. But it was.
>
> I am willing to bet that it was at least two billion dollars, and I'm
> quite sure that the $275 million figure being batted around is a red
> herring purposefully "leaked" by Microsoft.
I suspect you're right. Microsoft paid a *bundle* to avoid what might have
happened.
And you know what? I will never forgive Caldera for taking the bribe.
> >As for the rest of your message... since you're not arguing honestly, I
> >can't think of a reason I should waste any more of my time on it.
>
> "I licks ya cause I can, and cause I wants, and cause yer the kind that
> licken's good fer!" - Horatio Hornblower
>
> --
> 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! =-----
------------------------------
Subject: A Question about the Free Software Foundation
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A Humble Coder)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:34:12 GMT
I guess this is a little off topic, but since Linux is all about freedom I
figured it'd be okay to post here. I didn't know where else to post.
I have just finished reading the Why Software Should Not Have Owners from
the GNU site (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html). And I
understand what it is saying (i think) and agree with it for the most part.
But the thing that keeps tripping me up about FSF vs OpenSource vs
proprietary software is how does the programmer actually make a living?
>From the FSF page it sounds like the programmer is hired because the
employer needs some software or needs some "free" software enhanced in some
way. As such the "new" software itself is not owned by either the developer
or the employer the development time is the only thing that is "paid" for.
But lets say that I spend one year developing a really cool office
productivity application. How to I recoup my cost. I offer both the
source code and binaries to the community. Am I allowed to charge a
"reasonable" fee (let's say $5) for folks to "get a copy" of my application
and source code?
I'm not really worried about some one duplicating the application to every
desktop in the corporation. What I'm afraid of is a corporation taking my
source code and extending it and selling it for $50 a copy. Ouch! that
hurts, I can't complete with that -- I will starve.
In a world where everyone plays fair I like the FSF concept. But we don't
live in a world like that. I cannot complete against software companies
because they will rip me off, they can maniuplate the market -- I can't.
It seem like from this position, capitalism fails me...
But perhaps I'm missing the point...
------------------------------
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 22:13:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >So let's see... that'd be 5 misattributions that I can recall, and 4 in
>the
>> >past three days.
>> >
>> >Not bad at all.
>>
>> So you're going to be another Roger, eh? Check Deja News, and see if
>> you can track him down. He said he had a list.
>
>No thanks. Just pointing out that you don't seem to care what you're arguing
>about as long as you're arguing.
>
>Not necessarily a bad thing. Just an observation.
But a false observation, I'm afraid. Which is to say that even though
you had it, you have not perceived what you observed correctly. I enjoy
reasonably arguing whatever I am reasonably arguing, so long as I am
reasonably arguing. I care about everything I argue, though, or I
wouldn't bother arguing about it.
--
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: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gallup site down, Call Microsoft support
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 02:11:52 GMT
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> > Build under gcc on linux gave me the expected results. VC++ under
> >windows 95 gave me the *runtime* failure message of "Program
> >C:\...\testaloc.exe Invalid allocation size: 4294967295 bytes." So I
> >guess Windows can't recover from memory allocation errors (suprise!).
>
> What is the result under NT and Win2K or even win98 and winme - maybe it's
> been fixed since 1995 (unlikely but you never know) - also what does it do
> on a 1995 vintage linux (pre 2.0 kernel probably in those days)?
Under pre 2.0 it would work fine also. gnu malloc has usually worked.
malloc has never been safe, though. It has always been recommended to
wrap it in code as above to *prevent* run time failure. I'll try the
program under NT tomorrow. (Same VC++ compiler, different machine). I've
done similar things on NT and had the same results, but fair is fair. I
don't have Me or 2k, but I don't expect and different results : run time
failure of a program that should work.
The debugger mode of visual studio gets me. It gives a failure deep
inside some MS dll and I have to step back through lots of MS code to
get back to my source to look for my problem. As if MS libraries weren't
already bug free and had to be debugged on every use.
------------------------------
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 22:21:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Correct. And yet all of these things are relatively easily dealt with,
>> >> because Unix was not designed with any preconceived notion of what
>> >> particular purpose a particular computer might have.
>> >
>> >Well, no. It assumed that the computer could do everything -- and that
>the
>> >user would be on the other side of a dumb terminal.
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by "the other side". Unix developed
>> internetworking as well as remote terminal networking.
>
>Exqueeze me? Internetworking and remote terminal networking were around well
>before UNIX.
Well, remote terminals may have been (depending on your definition of
"remote"), but internetworking certainly does not predate Unix, though
it does predate when Unix had internetworking.
>> Client/server
>> and TCP/IP are "bolted on" much more on Microsoft platforms than in
>> Unix, to say the least.
>
>Unlike, say, UNIX where it's generally implemented differently to file
>handling. Sounds like a bolt on to me.
Not at all. That "everything is a file" refers to local resources.
While sockets might, at first glance, appear to be local resources, they
are not. That's what makes it *inter*networking, instead of just
networking, though it would take a month of Sundays for me to describe
this abstraction to you if you don't already recognize it as true.
>> The "other side" might be a client or a server
>> or both or a router or gateway or firewall or proxy, also. Generally,
>> you want to not make assumptions about what precisely the "other side"
>> is, but I understand your specifically pointing out the "dumb terminal"
>> concept.
>>
>> Yes, now every user has a computer, and a single dumb terminal. I
>> understand your point. There is much I'd like to jettison concerning
>> the legacy which Unix has in supporting the 'remote terminal' paradigm.
>> But then I remember that innovation doesn't end, unless a monopoly
>> prevents competition, but it doesn't occur purposefully, either. It is
>> much like evolution, in biology, in fact. The reason why something is
>> beneficial is often merely perception, and the reason it was developed
>> is often not the purpose it ultimately serves. NetPCs, voice
>> recognition, on-line home/appliance control, and integration with
>> cellular/PDA technology might all benefit from this "the other end of
>> the link may be brain-dead, or may be another host" development concept
>> which Unix embodies and Windows can be forced into if the monopoly
>> requires enough effort from its consumers to make it work.
>
>Personally, I'd just love to have all my files up on some network somewhere
>that I have to subscribe to monthly, so that a nosy administrator can read
>them. Yummy. Sounds like the best thing since sliced bread to me.
Sounds like .NET, actually, doesn't it? I'm not sure what you mean by
"have all my files up on some network somewhere". You forget; that's a
*host* you've got there, not some dumb terminal. Unless you're running
Microsoft Win9x; then its whatever the heck Microsoft wants to make it
today. If you've got NT, at least you've got a functioning workstation,
and an only slightly broken host.
It seems to me that people who don't understand the reality of the
operational functionality in Unix, which is figuratively light-years
beyond both Win/DOS and NT/2K, have probably never really understood the
relationship between hosts and the Internet. Which is to say, Simon,
that it seems to me, from my general perception and in my expert
opinion, that you do not really understand internetworking. Now, I
haven't worked with you, so that's just a guess. But its an expert
guess, I assure you.
--
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: Tired O'Shills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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 19:26:55 -0700
Yeah, that mutt doesn't even want to know. He's still into S-100 & CP/M.
But here's the real pisser: we bet on the response I'd get, and he won. Now I owe
him his own fire hydrant :)
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"Tired O'Shills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Simon, my dog says you are inflexible, an ideologue and a shill, and
> >> will never agree with anything that is not in strict compliance with the
> >> Microsoft version of reality. Well, OK, that's what I think. Prove me wrong.
> >
> >Maybe you should stay off the hallucinogenic drugs.
>
> It sounds like your dog was right, "Tired". Simon isn't going to live
> up to his word to change his sig, and he isn't even going to take your
> generous offer to merely admit he was wrong. Well, you and I both know
> that, at least. I'm not sure if your dog is even aware of the
> situation, eh?
>
> --
> 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: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 02:23:11 GMT
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ABJI5.8254$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Correct. And yet all of these things are relatively easily dealt with,
> > because Unix was not designed with any preconceived notion of what
> > particular purpose a particular computer might have.
>
> Well, no. It assumed that the computer could do everything -- and that the
> user would be on the other side of a dumb terminal.
>
No, it just assumed that everything that needed to be done could be
handled as a simple data stream at the OS level, which turns out to
be true whether it is a tty device connected to a terminal or a tcp
stream carrying an X connection.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 02:29:44 GMT
Actually I've been looking at it for an hour, and I'm still not sure
what you are trying to say and how your "facts" prove your point.
claire
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:39:36 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:20:56 -0400, "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Did this response go through one of those language translators by chance?
>> >It's not making a whole lot of sense.
>>
>> Maybe he's been hanging around jedi?
>>
>> claire
>
>It only took you an hour.
>
>I'm surprised.
>
>Charlie
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
