Linux-Advocacy Digest #1, Volume #30 Thu, 2 Nov 00 07:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Weevil")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I think I'm in love..... (Tom Wilson)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Roger Lindsj|)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:08:44 +0200
"Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Take a look hove microsoft has done on w98. There they have added
something
> they calls "windowsupdate". Clicking on that takes you to a website there
you
> can click on "productupgrade". This will start some sort of scriptfunction
> that looks through your system and lists upgrades you can install, and
> upgrades you already have installed (many is for security holes in IE/OL).
> In microsofts case, you have to answer some dialogboxes and click on the
> things you want.
> But what will prevent any hacker from putting this sort of script embedded
> in html code without dialogs? Script that can do anything with your
system.
> IE and outlook uses the same "security" settings and has this sort of
script
> active by default. What happens if someone sends you an html-formatted
email,
> with scripts in it (without dialogs)? Does they get executed?
> One can also note that if you turn scripts off, the windowsupdate feature
> will
> no longer works. Good luck all you lookout users.
> /Lennart
By default, those security settings are set to meduim, you can set them to
high (or paranoid, or custom) *easily*
And if you know what you are doing, you can use windowsupdate without using
this script.
In addition to that, in win2000, that kind of script wouldn't work if you
don't log in as administrator. (root in windows, always a stupid thing to
do.)
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 04:49:24 -0600
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tqj81$r2q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > > > I would challenge anyone to get Windows up and running, and Linux up
> and
> > > > running, use them for awhile, and then determine which feels more
> > > > pleasant to use. Personally, I find "waiting for Windows" to be
much
> > > > more painful now that I've gotten used to Linux.
> > >
> > > Windows wins hands down.
> >
> > Not in my book. It is so slow and unresponsive compared to Linux.
> > Start a file search on Windows, then try to edit a Notepad text file.
> > Start a file search on Linux, then edit using, e.g., vi.
>
> Just did it, I also has getright, babylon, outlook, norton NAV 2001,
surfree
> (a dialing program that takes 20% of the computer resources, talk about
> bloatware...)
> The resoponse was less than one second to launch the search, another
second
> to write the parameters, and a third to launch notepad. (ctrl+alt+n, my
very
> useful shortcut)
>
> > Which feels more responsive. In my experience, Linux, by far.
> >
> > > When you are talking about pleasent of use, windows GUI is by far
> superior
> > > to any thing that linux or unix produced so far.
> >
> > I've not experienced that very much. Windows is sometimes less clumsy
than
> > Gnome/X, but it reacts more slowly.
>
> I don't think so. X + Gnome/KDE are much more resource hungry in my
> experiance than windows.
That could be because you are trusting the numbers you see in Windows.
Windows lies to you about your resources. Microsoft changed the way it
counts "free memory" beginning with Win95, because Win95 itself consumed
such a shocking amount. Each successive version of Windows gets worse.
When you see:
System Resources: 91% free
or something like that, you are being lied to. What it's really telling you
is that 91% of whatever was left AFTER Windows was loaded, is still free.
So if Windows consumed 60 of your 64 megs, you'll have 4 megs left for
actually running your software, even though Windows will say something like
"94% free".
Win 3.x, and versions before it, were at least honest about this number, in
that the algorithm they used to calculate free space was closer to what
people think they're seeing when they see this number.
jwb
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:02:44 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3a00b5cf$3$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Look, NT was as much at fault in the yorktown as the OS that was used in
>the
>> >Arianne 5 was responsible for it's crash.
>>
>> REALLY! I'm sure this is going to be good --- And the reason the database
>> kept the crew from restarting NT and get underway was?
>Can't use your brain can you? Once the tech entered the data into the
>database, applications all over the ship started crashing as they performed
>illegal calculations. When the applications were restarted, the first thing
>they do is read the data out of the database, causing it to crash again. The
>only way to fix the problem is to fix the database, and without the
>application to enter the data into, it has to be done by hand.
And you want me to think that M$ didn't have anything to do with the system
design that prevented all the systems -- which are not interconnected --
except by the software from being restarted because of something someone did
and poor old misaligned M$ is innocent!
Go away troll. Your not even a bright talking head today.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 05:57:05 -0500
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3a00b948$4$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> The Yorktown is a non-combat vessel. But it's irrelevant since the
>fault
>> >> was in the database software. The Database vendor even said that the
>> >> problem would have never happened if the navy had not been running a
>beta
>> >> version of their software.
>>
>> >I'm not familiar with the details of this case. Did NT crash or not? If
>so,
>> >then surely you're not blaming an application for it. If the OS crashes,
>it
>> >is the fault of the OS. A buggy application should have no effect on the
>OS,
>> >beyond perhaps keeping it busier than it should.
>>
>>
>> NT not only crashed, but Erik M$. Funkenbusch is such a complete
>nincompoop
>> that he thinks a guided missile cruiser is a "non-combat vessel."
>No, the Yorktown was taken out of combat to be an experimental prototype.
>While it's indeed a guided missle class (specifically Ticonderoga or Aegis
>class) cruiser, it's job is a non-combat one, since it is expected to fail.
Your really twisting what you don't know to prove your point. What you really
mean is that vessels in sea-trials are not combat ready. That is a given, but
you're asshole if you think that it will make me think you have any idea of
what you are talking about.
Now tell us how the mighty M$ didn't design a system capable of recovering
from this error? I mean I know that they have trained the world to recover
from failure by rebooting, and all the dunces think its the way it suppose to
be, but do you guys really think, er, believe that is the best method during
combat?
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 05:48:41 -0500
Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In article <3a00b5cf$3$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>Look, NT was as much at fault in the yorktown as the OS that was used in
>>>the
>>>Arianne 5 was responsible for it's crash.
>>
>>REALLY! I'm sure this is going to be good --- And the reason the database
>>kept the crew from restarting NT and get underway was?
>Here you go, from comp.risks. Pay close attention to the second paragraph.
>Now, care to find a document that says NT caused the problem? The guy who
>directed the construction of the system doesn't seem to think it did.
>-------------------
>....Harvey McKelvey, former director of Navy programs for CAE
>Electronics, the firm which apparently built the misbehaving application
>(www.sciam.com/1999/0399issue/0399letters.html).
>McKelvey writes that the failure, "was not the result of any system software
>or design deficiency but rather a decision to allow the ship to manipulate
>the software to stimulate [sic] machinery casualties for training purposes
>and the 'tuning' of propulsion machinery operating parameters. In the usual
>shipboard installation, this capability is not allowed."
>McKelvey adds that CAE Electronics expressed "serious concern" when this test
>was proposed.
I'd say that too if I was in the position with some responsibilitiy for the
failure. If it was a GAO report I would be interested in reading it. The rest
are all suspect.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:07:22 -0500
Jason you may or may not find the exact words you want -- you're trying to
find a quick proof not of the point of some word that can be made to mean what
you want to prove your grudge point. -- I can assure I never said OS2
overcame hardware limits in any context except real-world end user server, so
give it up, and start looking somewhere else for entertainment.
I suggest you start by looking in the the Student Union. There ought to be
lots of girls there. Trust me kid, they are more fun then this -- and if your
not sure what to do with one, try a newsgroup on love or romance.
In <8tqf91$2sm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/02/00
at 01:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>In article <3a00af6b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Jason you're an even bigger asshole then I first thought. In addition to not
>>being able to think clearly, you can't read carefully either. I never said it
>>physically overcame the hardware issue. I said it effectively overcame the
>>problem because its not only too minor to measure and therefore of no matter
>>in real world use -- but after all this time you still can't point to one
>>single study or report anywhere from anyone to support your whining. You keep
>>ignoring that little detail. -- That, plus the fact that you are still
>>whining about a year later and have continued to whine for all of this time,
>>does make you an asshole.
>and again from
>http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=x60.deja.com,ST_rn=ap]/jump/http://x60.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=597133173&search=thread&CONTEXT=972958734.160628801&HIT_CONTEXT=972958420.159383593&HIT_NUM=529&hitnum=39
>> OS2 does over come it in the sense that it does keep track of files and
>> other things, which do increase the overall performance levels to
>> something beyond what we see
>> from Winwhatever.
>Gee I don't see you claiming anything about real world performance, I see you
>claiming that OS/2 overcomes the chipset caching as that was what the thread
>was about. Grab a thread from deja and prove it if I am wrong. You can't
>because the post that would prove it doesn't exist and you are a revisionist
>lying asshole. :-)
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:43:21 -0500
Jason you're still doing the same thing; making up whining words to prove your
grudge. Now go away and play with yourself or get a girl or find real proof
from real-world use. BTW, I'm tried of your little game. Its been a year or
close to it, and I'd have anymore time to play with children. -- And your
drivel belows shows that you never understood the point anyway. Think of that.
After a year you still can't think-through any point but your own. I must say
I am disappointed to see that you are not capable of learning anything that
doesn't match your wish to win an meaningless point.
n <8tqeg3$2ib$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/02/00
at 01:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>In article <3a00af6b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In <8tp8g2$d86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/01/00
>> at 02:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>>
>>>In article <39ff6852$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Jason you asshole, either prove me wrong (prove there is a demostrateable and
>>>>severe enough-to-measure productivity hit for the user of OS2 because the
>>>>low-level cache can't access memory above 64K, when the user is running OS2
>>>>native multi-threaded programs, and the real-world work is/is not balanced
>>>>with the productivity gains of multi-tasking other work (programs) -- whether
>>>>used/not used in a worker-oriented (work-as-he-chooses or works-best) mode
>>>>that is not limited by the software design.
>>>>
>>
>>>You obviously don't know jack, you just through out jargon. I did prove you
>>>wrong, the link showed what the topic at hand was and somebody else corrected
>>>you too. When you tried to claim that OS/2 overcame a hardware issue you
>>>obviously showed your ignorance and as they say, ignorance is bliss. Right
>>>here in this thread you claimed that you never said OS/2 overcame harware and
>>>I provided a link where you claim that it does because, and I quote
>>
>>Jason you're an even bigger asshole then I first thought. In addition to not
>>being able to think clearly, you can't read carefully either. I never said it
>>physically overcame the hardware issue. I said it effectively overcame the
>>problem because its not only too minor to measure and therefore of no matter
>>in real world use -- but after all this time you still can't point to one
>>single study or report anywhere from anyone to support your whining. You keep
>>ignoring that little detail. -- That, plus the fact that you are still
>>whining about a year later and have continued to whine for all of this time,
>>does make you an asshole.
>You said it overcame it because you didn't know what is being talked about.
>You can't overcome hardware access times. The point has already been proven.
>If you don't think this affects real world performance tell me why servers
>have large caches? Huh Ed, why do you think that is? Because large amounts
>of ram are no good unless they have a high speed cache? Do you know the
>difference between a software cache and a disk cache and the cache on a cpu?
>Are you going to continue with your lies and insults? You lost on this point
>and yet won't admit to it. If you dont' think this affects real world
>performance take 2 pentium motherboards, one 430TX and one 430VX. Make all
>equal including the ram, say 256Mb. Now run benchmarks and run them as
>servers with heavy loads i.e. 100% ram usage. Jesus Ed, I think Sun and
>Intel and all those others making chips for servers with large on chip caches
>are idiots, they should learn from you and see that it doesn't affect real
>world performance. Fucking idiot. Why do you think most processor today have
>a large cache on chip? It's because today's memory can't keep up with modern
>processors. Funny how modern chip design goes along with what I'm claiming
>>
>>Go away little boy. I'm tired of your constant drivel. I suggest you find a
>>girl and do something besides play on the internet. You will be a happier
>>person and maybe you will find other things to do -- although I personally
>>hope you done breed anymore idiots like you.
>>
>You're tired of my truths? Tell you what Ed, why don't you give the boys at
>Intel a call and tell them how stupid their Xeon's with 2Mb of cache built in
>aren't worth it since you won't see and performance increase in the real
>world. Here is a fun test for you. Grab an old 486 motherboard install
>OS/2, run it for awhile. After a while, go into the bios and turn off the
>cache and get back to me with the results. What a joke you are.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I'm in love.....
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:07:15 GMT
Ken McFelea wrote:
> Now if I can just find some helpful people that like to shoot skeet.
> I've got a whole stack of MS CD's that we could use.
I've two NT4.0, a 95 'A', a 95 'B', and a 98 to contribute!
I can also throw in 18 OS/2 v2.0 and 6 Win3.11 floppies (If you're a good
shot)
Just say PULL! ;)
Tom Wilson
PS: You do the shooting, i've only a Winchester Model 12
Not exactly a skeet gun.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Lindsj|)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: 2 Nov 2000 12:09:05 GMT
In article <0uZL5.41200$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roger Lindsj|" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8tpctt$ikg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >What does word processor should do?
>>
>> Let you enter text, spellcheck, minor layout (typeface,
>> flowcontrol). If I want something to actually look good I use Latex.
>
>Hmmm... so Wordpad does enough then? Cool! It's free.
I'm not sure which part you intended to answer. For regular word
processing Wordpad would probably be enough, except that we were
talking about Linux applications... have not yet gotten it working
here...must be some tricky switch or something ;)
As for doing Latex, I'd choose Emacs over Wordpad any day as it has a
couple of more features that I find usefull.
Roger Lindsjö
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
