Linux-Advocacy Digest #556, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 07:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: linux jobs and skills. Why the sudden surge and increase? (kiwiunixman)
Re: Statistic about this bigot group (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Things I have noticed................ ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Major shift (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:03:27 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4hiV5.26842$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:903jsn$568q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > As usual you are avoiding reality. Do you dictate to everyone else in
> > your
> > > office and your clients and customers how they are allowed to
> communicate
> > > with you, or do you do what you are forced to do and accommodate them?
> >
> > I dictate them to use a file format which I can use.
>
> And just how many clients and customers have gone along with your demands?
All of them.
If they want me to read their files, they send them in a format that I can
read.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:12:53 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ifiV5.26841$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:903865$376c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > > A> When I buy a computer, I don't go to major vendor. On general, I
> > rather
> > > > build my computers per my needs. Vednor system has much quircks that
I
> > > don't
> > > > like. Therefor, I don't have a problem here.
> > >
> > > What do you do when you need a hundred at once, delivered to some
other
> > > office? Or even a few dozen rack-mount systems?
> >
> > "Hello, it's me again. I need computer with the following specs. Can
I've
> > them by next week? Yes, I knew I could, thank you very much. And please
> > arange that they would be delivered to this adress. Nice talking to you"
>
> You are dreaming. Try it for real.
I did, do and will continue doing so.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:19:29 GMT
Do you remember the Amiga 500 with Workbech 1.3, now that is efficient
programming, and surprisingly fast considering it ran off a FDD
kiwiunixman
Tom Wilson wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Tom Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>>> Tom Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrick Raymond Hancox wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you have to prove with that post? Look at Windows 2000
>>>>>>>
>>> Pro,
>>>
>>>>> 650MB,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> base installation, compare that to, say, Redhat Linux, which
>>>>>>>
> maybe
>
>>> a
>>>
>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bigger in size, but includes valuable third party tools such
>>>>>>>
> as
>
>>> tar,
>>>
>>>>> gzip,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and StarOffice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a single UDMA66 20Gb drive sells for about $180 or so, last i
>>>>>>
>>> looked.
>>>
>>>>> 650Mg
>>>>>
>>>>>>> (which, i'm guessing, includes your page file) is not much of a
>>>>>>
>>> problem.
>>>
>>>>>> Bloat-ware is bloatware, no matter how much it costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bloat is one of the reasons why LoseDOS performance SUCKS!
>>>>>
>>>>> That'd change if CS students were forced, for at least one semester,
>>>>
> to
>
>>>>> write assembly code for a small 65xx based system with 8K. Learning
>>>>
> how
>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>> do things compactly and efficiently would be the result.
>>>>
>>>> 68xx would be better.
>>>>
>>>> The 65xx line is only appropriate for industrial microcontrollers
>>>> and toys.
>>>>
>>> And therefore an excellent tool to teach floating point theory!
>>> I'm a sadist, Aaron, not a realist.<g>
>>
>> Yes, you are.
>
>
> But, I'm a sadist with a plan. Performing IEEE floating point operations on
> a processor that doesn't even posess an MUL operand - A wonderful exercise
> in logic. Performing complex operations with a minimal instruction set and
> with limited resources builds a great deal of discipline. Hell, it used to
> be par for the course. Those worthless arcade games written for VIC-20s and
> C64s were classic examples of efficient software design.
>
> I agree about the 68xx line. It was, IMHO, excellent. A lot more appealing
> than anything Intel had to offer at the time.
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Go home Al....
> Game over, man!
>
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:23:46 GMT
mark wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Soltysiak wrote:
>
>>
>> kiwiunixman wrote:
>>
>>> I have nothing against Commercial Software, if fact I am an out right
>>> capitalist, however, Microsoft has a reputation for churning out shyte so
>>> that customers (like your self) think because it comes from Microsoft it
>>> must be good.
>>
>> Nope, i don't buy their software, and i never will.. I really don't care about
>> Miscrosft. But I happen to like many of the commercials apps for Windows like
>> Protel and Orcard, and some others like Mia and SoftImage. Too bad Linux
>> doesn't have these, eh?
>
>
> So, if you don't but their software, err, how do you run these apps?
>
> You pirate the OS, then?
>
> Mark
bad boys, bad boys, what ya gon'na, what ya gon'na do when they come for
you.
Matthew, I hope you like your new, big cell mate named Bubba who like's
fresh meat! grrrrrrrrroal
kiwiunixman
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:33:35 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 27 Nov 2000
> 02:59:44 -0500;
>
>> Matthew Soltysiak wrote:
>>
>>> Aaron, get a life. The guy likes Whislter, so be it. Leave him alone. In fact,
>i like
>>> it too. My eng. buddies and I love it. Beats the hell outta Linux for usability.
> Take a
>>
>> You're obviously going to a 3rd-rate college.
>
>
> I should also add (while snipping Aaron Thickskull's quoting of the
> entire several hundred lines of the article without comment, and his
> legendarily stupid .sig) that they're not "engineering buddies",
> Matthew, until you all graduate. Until then, they're just the college
> kids you hang around with.
>
No, what you must understand is that by Micro$ofts definition, he is
one, he can use windows....and...wait for it.....click on the start
button, he is now a MSCW, Microsoft Certified Wanker.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:18:40 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >
> >[snip]
> >| Boy, you are an odd poster, aren't you? You seem to be arguing that
OSS
> >| is bad, in principle,
> >
> >Not all software can be developed profitably as OSS.
> >
>
>
> I don't think the intention of the OSS was to
> attempt to make a profit at developing such
> dribble as more Word Processors, Spreadsheets, ect.
How are you going to eat, then?
Making a good (or even bad, for that matter) work processor, spreadsheet,
etc, can take a *lot* of time and consume a lot of resources.
How would you return the invesment?
> If anything the GNU/GPL will force the developers
> at comming up with NEW material. Not the
> same old crap, over and over again.
And what would pay the bills while they are at it.
You can sell GNU software, but the problem with it, that if you intend to
make *profit* from GNU software, you don't make it from selling it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:21:49 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:C5qV5.88$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90417b$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <903r8k$594r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> In article <8vulpn$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> >> In article <3a228f5a$0$14371$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Conrad
> > Rutherford
> > > >> >wrote:
> > > >> >> >how would you know?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I think he knows what's run better for him, which is what he
said.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It's nothing like :
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >That's like saying you run Linux cause it kicks DOS 6.22's ass.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> at all.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> wa waaaaa.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Besides, we really don't care whether Ayende likes the colour
> > > >> >> scheme of DOS7.3 or DOS8 or whatever this will be.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >There isn't, nor ever was, DOS in NT line.
> > > >> >You are thinking 9x line.
> > > >> >A very common mistake with linadvocates, it seems.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Shame really, 'cos the only thing I would actually use
> > > >> Microsoft OS for in my own time would be game playing. And
> > > >> that's only possible with DOS.
> > > >
> > > >That is just about the most ridicilous, inaccurate, and idiotic
> statement
> > > >that I've heard since I last read Aaron's posts.
> > >
> > > Que? My, we are getting personal. Well, 'tis true. I do not
> > > run MS OSs in my spare time except under _exceptional_ circumstances.
> > > The only one I know of is for a game which will only run under
> > > dos. That's that. It's a fact, and I don't really see how you
> > > can call it inaccurate.
> >
> > Because not even a moderatedly successful game came out in the last
three
> > years or so that didn't run on windows?
> >
>
> You have to remember, Ayende, that a lot of folks still play games that
were
> written before Win95.
I know, GoldenAxe is my favoraite old time game.
I can still play it, your point?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:27:27 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:03:39
> [...]
> >If IBM would've really wanted to push OS/2, they would've not signed
those
> >contracts.
>
> A fait accompli is hardly a cogent evaluation of the commercial
> situation. This kind of "nobody ever agrees to a contract without
> agreeing to a contract" stuff doesn't explain why, if IBM didn't want to
> push OS/2, Microsoft had to threaten them with making Windows so
> expensive it would put them out of business to get them to stop.
Put them out of business to get them to stop?
How would raising the price of windows will put IBM out of business?
In fact, it was IBM interest that they would raise the price of windows.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:33:41 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:DaiV5.26838$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:903l4f$57ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > About the documents, I can read documents made in office 97 or 2000 with
> > Word 6.
> > File > Save As > Word 6.0
> > No problems there.
>
> How do you do that when you only have word 6.0 and an office 97 document?
> And please don't tell me about the conversion program that was released
> much later.
I save the docs from 97/2000 in word 6 format.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux jobs and skills. Why the sudden surge and increase?
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:49:40 GMT
The reason why you can is because UNIX got it right the first time,
unlike Microsoft, which, in some cases, still haven't got it right.
kiwiunixman
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> On 29 Nov 2000 13:23:51 -0800, chris@looking_for_advice wrote:
>>
>>> I think I am making the correct thing, please tell me if I am
>>> wrong, and why you think so. Any people actually working on
>>> linux for living? can you tell what do you think the future for
>>> linux jobs will be?
>>
>> I've recently been offered a programming position in an academic
>> environment, writing free Linux software, and that's probably what
>> I'll do next year.
>>
>> Linux skills are pretty valuable because they have broader application
>> than just Linux -- linux is built on standards, so your skills should
>> be applicable to UNIX in general.
>
>
> That...and the code you write today will still work 30 years from now.
>
> Not true with LoseDOS.
>
>
>> I'd suggest that you set yourself up a nice home network and get a solid
>> understanding of "sys admin 101", and back it up with some solid
>> programming skills. See the books "Beginning Linux Programming" and
>> "Professional Linux programming"
>>
>> I think the future for people with solid Linux skills will be pretty good.
>> Linux seems to be the place where a lot of interesting development (eg
>> KDE, GNOME) is taking place. As a general rule, I think people who develop
>> broad skills on standards based technologies ( C, C++, UNIX ) have a
>> better future than those who rely on proprietary technologies ( VB )
>>
>> --
>> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
>> elflord at panix dot com
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Statistic about this bigot group
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:50:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerson Kurz) writes:
> 121 Users - Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
> 126 Users - Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
> 268 Users - Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
> Of course, you're all on WINE, right ? Yeah sure.
Of course, you only counted posts that weren't crossposted - as is
extremely common - to Windows or OS/2 groups, right?
And of course, you took care to only count each poster once, right?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things I have noticed................
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:55:31 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy wrote:
> >mlw wrote:
> >
> >> Flowers? I was thinking of using the rock. ;-)
> >
> >Stoning? What's wrong with crucifixion?
> >Crucifixion's a doddle, you know. Look,
> >I'll supply the cross, you supply the
> >nails (only one cross each, please).
>
> Windows?
> - No, unix actually!
> Oh really, that's excellent!
> - Yes, Bill said I'd been a really good astroturfer and
> would be allowed to use unix from now on.
> That's wonderful!
> - Nah, only kidding, Windows please.
> Ah, okay <smiles>, one cross each, line on the left.
LOL!
Nothing like a good Monty Python reference to break the monotony!
--
Tom Wilson
Go home Al....
Game over, man!
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major shift
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:05:52 GMT
The limit per-node is not based on the Solaris OS but the SMP
limitation, companies such as SGI have adopted a new standard called
NUMA that allows for considerably more processors in a box.
kiwiunixman
. wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:900ne5$lvl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> news:8vv7oi$rri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>
>>>>> "...a major shift continued toward non-Microsoft servers. "
>>>>>
>>>>> While the winvocates try to tell us what's so great about a 49 day
>>>>> uptime clock, the European server market is moving to Unix/Linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/reuters/REU20001123S0008
>>>>
>>>> If you read the article, it's not that they're moving away from Windows,
>>>> it's that they're moving to higher end RISC systems, which currently
>>>
>> only
>>
>>>> run Unix or Linux. With (until very recnetly) Intel based servers
>>>
>> maxing
>>
>>>> out at 8 CPU's, the 64 CPU systems that Sun and others offer are much
>>>
>> more
>>
>>>> attractive. That's changing though. Win2k Datacenter can support CPU
>>>> configurations up to 32 processors.
>>>
>>> Neat. Half as much as the worst of its competition. And on compaqs yet.
>>> Yes, im sure all the high-end engineers out there who are currently
>>
>> building
>>
>>> gigantic unix systems are going to be very happy to switch to compaq/w2k.
>>
>> Worst of it's competition? 64 CPU's seems to be the max most commercial
>> systems can do.
>
>
> Actually, no. ONE sun starfire NODE can have 64 CPUs. You can have many
> hundreds all running parallel in an install. IBM makes machines with
> many multiples of 64 CPUs per node. Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, etc. can all
> recognize many hundreds of CPUs actually.
>
> Windows absolutely, positively, one hundred percent CAN NOT.
>
> And it never, ever will be able to; because compaq will never make a
> machine that big.
>
>>> No, really.
>>>
>>> And this datacenter beast has been on the burner for how long now?
>>
>> What are you talking about? DataCenter has been a released product for
>> about 4 months.
>
>
> Neat. Is anyone using it on machines which contain more than 8 processors?
> Which ones?
>
>>> Its never going to happen.
>>
>> Already has.
>
>
> Its not running on 64 processors, and never ever will.
>
>
>
>
> -----.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
