Linux-Advocacy Digest #935, Volume #30 Sat, 16 Dec 00 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... ("Rich C")
Re: Corel to pull out of Linux (kiwiunixman)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... ("Rich C")
Re: MASTERTRADE LINUX ROLL-OUT 11-12-00 ("Adam Warner")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Ayende Rahien")
Larry Ellison (mlw)
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (him self)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (Ian Pulsford)
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (him self)
Re: Conclusion ("Adam Ruth")
Re: MASTERTRADE LINUX ROLL-OUT 11-12-00 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Corel to pull out of Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is awful ("the_blur")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 00:14:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob Hauck
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Dec 2000 16:43:44 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:41:04 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>Why on earth would any home PC user own a SCSI hard disk drive?
>
>I have one because the IDE drive failed and I had a spare SCSI card and
>disk that were removed from a server I upgraded. So now the machine is
>SCSI. Did I do it wrong? Linux installed just fine, no complaints.
Yes, you did it all wrong; you're supposed to obey the Whims of
the Wintel Cabal and go right out and purchase a $3,000 system
complete with 50 GB IDE hard drive, the latest in video gaming technology,
512M of RAM, and Windows Millennium. :-) :-) :-)
Uh oh...is that the whup-whup of black helicopters I hear? :-)
>
>
>>> And, no, don't ask me how to check data integrity under Windows . . .
>>> there don't seem to be any tools for this, unlike Linux . . . md5sums,
>>> and all that, do not seem to be standard tools on Windows boxen.
>>
>>Windows NT & 2000 (and NTFS) all feature data integrety tools. NTFS uses
>>it's three MFT's to verify the data integrety of data written to, in real
>>time, and read from (again, realtime).
>
>I don't think you understand what he's talking about. Linux includes
>tools to checksum files to verify that they haven't been changed. They
>may have been changed on purpose, by a cracker say, and have perfect
>integrity filesystem-wise but are different from what they are supposed
>to be.
Yep; two different issues. Mind you, the only filesystem that I can
remember that even tried to address data integrity -- as opposed
to merely filesystem structure integrity -- is an old version of
AmigaDOS, which had a header and checksum on every block. A
later revision removed the header and allowed the data to fill the
block -- all 512 bytes of it.
It's possible VMS's file system has or had that capability, though. I
don't remember now. I also suspect that journaling records in a filesystem
such as ReiserFS have checksums -- I hope so.
As for the MFT; I wouldn't trust that thing as far as I can throw it.
It has a bad tendency to grow and grow, apparently -- and get
horribly fragmented while doing so. It probably eats memory while
doing so, as well -- the OS presumably has to keep track of the file
pointers/descriptors/? within while the volume is mounted.
I could be wrong -- but it's not a pretty-looking structure, from
an engineering standpoint, AFAICT.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random conspiracy here
up 83 days, 16:23, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:19:38 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
me.com...
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:12:37 -0500, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>
> >> "Packard Smell"? Do you have any idea what a moron you sound like when
> >you
> >> use the taunting style of a 4 year old?
> >>
> >
> >Hmmm...... just maybe I've struck a nerve there?
> >
>
> Yup. Loud obnoxious morons annoy me. You reminded me of them.
>
>
> >Anyway, I have worked on many of these machines, and I can tell you that
the
> >term "Packard Smell" is not 4-year-old taunting, but a perfectly
descriptive
> >technical term for these pieces -o-feces.
>
> bullshit.
Oh, so excrement analogies are ok for you but not for me, eh?
> They smell the same as any other PC, especially when they're broken
> down requiring a motherboard replacement that'll cost $500 instead of $40
for a
> non-proprietary PC.
Never had to price a mb...they sound a lot like ASTs. That one was $470.00 I
told the guy I could build him a brand new 333 celery for the same price
(this was back when the fastest PIIs were around 500 Mhz.)
>
>
> >
> >And no matter how much of a moron I may sound like, I would sound like
MUCH
> >more of a moron if I had actually purchased one.
> agreed.
>
>
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel to pull out of Linux
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 00:30:09 GMT
I can't download (very sucessfully) 650MB iso images as I only have a
56L modem. If I were in the US, I would not have any problems (due to
the affordability of cable modems etc.).
kiwiunixman
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> kiwiunixman wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>> Well if (as you (MH) said) all Linux users pirate, then I must be a
>> loner in the fact that I BUY all my Linux software LEGALLY, everything
>
>>from distro to applications. Yes, I could easily download these
>
>> illegally off a hotline server, however, the only person at the end of
>> the day I will be hurting is my self, as companies will discontinue
>> selling Linux software due to piracy. However, I have little, or no
>
>
>
> Don't forget that downloading distro's and most apps from the net is not
> illegal like it is with windows - several distro's have iso images of their
> distro's on their own ftp sites for users to download instead of buying it
> (most of my distro's have come from the cover CD on linux magazines as
> it is not illegal for magazine publishers to download iso images and
> redistribute
> them either). Other than possibly Corel linux I cannot think of any way thay
> downloading a distro instead of buying it could ever be illegal (even if the
> person downloading it resells copies this is allowed in the GPL licence).
>
> Linux software (or at least the GPL parts) can never be pirated as it is
> owned
> by everyone - you are only giving away a copy of something the person you
> are
> giving it to already has rights to own.
--
"Like a midget at a urinal, you gotta keep on your toes"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
"Like a blind man at an orgy, you gotta feel your way out"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
____
Unix Programmer:
"If it an't broken, don't fix it"
Microsoft Programmer:
"If it an't broken and working perfectly, then their must be a problem"
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:32:23 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91gmul$s0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Donn Miller" <dmmillerzoominternet.net> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Microsoft does not make or design mice, they were (at the time that
> >> > the scrollwheel was introduced) repackaged logitech mice, designed
> >> > by logitech engineers. :)
> >>
> >> I don't know if I'd want to give any more money to MS, even though I've
> > heard
> >> that MS mice are pretty good. Does Logitech get any of the profits
from
> >> those MS mice?
>
> > Note the smiley at the end of his sentance. He wasn't serious.
>
> Well, not entirely anyhow. Microsoft does indeed not make hardware.
> Their mice are indeed repackaged.
...and Logitech DOES indeed make a wheel mouse. So you could buy from them
directly if you don't want to give money to MS.
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MASTERTRADE LINUX ROLL-OUT 11-12-00
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:47:35 +1200
Actually it's such a powerful news item on so many levels:
1. Because Microsoft thinks it is the industry standard, and compatibility
with Unix isn't a primary concern, it wasn't suitable for inclusion into
MasterTrade's present network (without use of troublesome middleware).
2. Linux is compatible with Unix (NFS shares, etc.) and required NO
middleware ("and all the difficulties that went with it").
I notice Microsoft has Services for UNIX:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/win2000/win2ksrv/technote/sfuintro.asp
Is this an additional cost to Win2k Server?
3. MasterTrade are actually experimenting with replacing the Unix servers as
well!
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 02:52:21 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Or, one wanted to play a game -- I'd love to play Wheel of Time, myself,
> on a Linux box, but WinE doesn't quite work with it yet. Maybe I
> should try it when I get home, though -- it's been awhile... :-)
I got a Voodoo 5, WoT is simply amazing on this.
I was *very* disappointed when, after I bought the *recommended* viedo card
(riva TNT), I found out that it sucked on that game, and I'd to replace it
to Voodoo 3.
> Does Microsoft -- or anyone else -- have a list of known compatible
hardware?
> Linux does. :-)
Of course, www.microsoft.com/hcl
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Larry Ellison
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:04:14 -0500
What's the difference between Larry Ellison and God?
God dosn't think he is Larry Ellison.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 01:07:03 +0000
Black Dragon wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:50:11 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Charlie Ebert' said:
>
> : Here's another interesting - unsolvable thread.
> :
> : Name the THING you can do with Windows you
> : CAN NOT do with Linux.
>
> Simple: B.S.O.D.
>
I have a screen saver on Linux that does a BSOD :-)
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 18:12:58 -0700
Retail pricing is $2,995 per CPU, street prices around $2,500. BTW, this is
a required license when connecting from the Internet if you don't want to
limit yourself to 1 CAL per connection.
"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xCS_5.95081$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> : >Nor does IIS 5.0, for that matter, or any web server I'm aware of.
> : >CAL doesn't mean that.
> :
> : What about SQL Server? If you have dynamic web content that's served
> : from SQL Server, does each simultaneous connection from IIS require a
> : CAL or not?
>
> It depends on the site configuration, if the web user does not connect
> directly to the SQL server then the answer is no. The web server connects
to
> the SQL server for data, sort of circumventing licensing. If the web user
is
> passed to the SQL server by the IIS and connects directly to the SQL
server,
> then one would need internet connection license. If I recall correctly
such
> license, unlimited connections, cost $2,500/CPU on the SQL server.
>
> Otto
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (him self)
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: 17 Dec 2000 01:18:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:11:00 GMT,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Despite the bullshit, Windows is making a systems administrator
> out of everyone these days.
>
That's correct. MS products are costing business
big bucks in lost productivity and administrative
costs. It's only a matter of time before a
corporation goes bust *because* of it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 11:25:46 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Well I guess so if you want to be pedantic and rehash another done-to-death
boring thread.
mlw wrote:
>
> So, one could say that there are no operating systems which run Windows
> programs.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 01:26:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:39:16 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Keith Peterson wrote:
>> Expressing disdain [for Microsoft by mangling the name -- ed] I
>> understand - but it seems to me that people can find a more mature
>> way of doing it. It just amazes me to see people insert these tags
>> and without compunction dismiss an entire line of products that,
>> problematic or not, get the job done.
Most of the time, anyway.
>
>IMHO Microsoft makes crap products.
And we buy them. (Well, most of "we", anyway.)
This worries me.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- maybe we can educate the IT purchasing managers?
up 83 days, 17:35, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (him self)
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: 17 Dec 2000 01:27:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 16:46:01 -0500,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is this going to be the normal definition of stringent, or
> the Microshaft definition of stringent? (every other commonly
> used word seems to have a different definition when used by MS)
>
'Stringent' means that more 'strings' will be
attached to the issuing of the certificate.
Firstly, you will have to agree not to promote
anything other than MS doctrine. Secondly,
as a sign of good faith, you will have to pay
more to get get the certificate.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 18:27:48 -0700
I wasn't talking about NT, I was talking about Windows. Big difference.
Besides, even if I had said NT, I would be referring also to W2K -- "Windows
2000, Built with NT Technology" or so the Microsoft tagline goes. I know
Netcraft can't get reliable numbers from NT, and *gasp* so do they. We're
talking about W2K, which Netcraft does have good numbers for. Not a great
deal yet, but enough to go off of.
All of the points you bring up have been hashed over and hashed over. There
are several things to consider:
1) Netcraft can filter for most such problems as load balancing, because
the numbers they get have a typical signature. Random values would be one
way to realize that the numbers you're seeing are to be discounted.
2) If going through a proxy, great, Netcraft measures the proxy box, not
the web servers. If you're scenario is correct, then Netcraft reports the
Unix, not the NT. So what? There are plenty of NT sites out there that
don't use balancing, which can be reported on. Besides, this is true for
Unix sites as well, so it should balance out.
3) The statement you quote has nothing to do with your arguments. You
should have selected something more apropos than what you did.
4) No one claimed Netcraft numbers were 100% accurate. I only claimed that
they were accurate enough to get some information from. Your argument seems
to be that because the numbers aren't 100% correct they must be 0% correct.
It seems to me there are a bunch of levels in between... or perhaps you only
like boolean logic.
Adam Ruth
"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:XfT_5.95089$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91g8t7$16ns$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> : This statement clearly implies that one reason Netcraft numbers for
> Windows
> : are lower is because Windows sys admins, as a whole, are less
experienced
> : than Unix sys admins. But at the same time, Unix requires more work and
> : knowledge than an equivalent Unix system. Okay, let's go with that
> : assumption. It can mean one of three things:
>
> Your statement is clearly as flawed as the Netcraft numbers are about NT.
To
> start with Netcraft can not provide uptime numbers for the following
> versions, quote from Netcraft side
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#os :
>
> "Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;
> .
> .
> NT3/Windows 95
> NT4 SP4, SP6 [and the information from service pack 5 seems unreliable]
> .
> .
> Additionally, NT4 uptimes cycle back to zero after 49.7 days, and give
> timestamps exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at this precise
> point"
>
> Furthermore, if the site uses TCP/IP based server load balancing
equipment,
> that in itself can throw off the uptime reporting. Not to mention the fact
> that if HTTP proxying involved, then Netcraft will not receive report from
> the actual web server, rather the intermediate machine will report the
> uptime number. The intermediate machine could be Check Point FW-1 on *nix
> platform, in which case Netcraft records a firewall on *nix uptime. For
all
> we know a site is reported as some sort of *nix, in actuality the site
might
> have server load balancing equipment behind the firewall with NT based web
> servers. I built and manage such commercial web sites, Check Point on
Nokia
> boxes front end and load balancing equipment for NT servers on the back
end.
>
> Otto
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MASTERTRADE LINUX ROLL-OUT 11-12-00
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:40:12 -0600
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91h2er$b7c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I notice Microsoft has Services for UNIX:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/win2000/win2ksrv/technote/sfuintro.asp
Microsoft has had services for unix for years. This is nothing new.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:50:15 -0600
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91h4vb$1rse$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 1) Netcraft can filter for most such problems as load balancing, because
> the numbers they get have a typical signature. Random values would be one
> way to realize that the numbers you're seeing are to be discounted.
Netcraft does no filtering though. They simply provide the numbers, no
matter how random they might be.
> 2) If going through a proxy, great, Netcraft measures the proxy box, not
> the web servers. If you're scenario is correct, then Netcraft reports the
> Unix, not the NT. So what? There are plenty of NT sites out there that
> don't use balancing, which can be reported on. Besides, this is true for
> Unix sites as well, so it should balance out.
Exactly, which means that neither the Unix *OR* Win2k numbers are accurate.
You don't KNOW if those sites are behind firewalls or load balancers or
anything else unless you know what hardware that site is running
specifically. That means grabbing any random site and running it through
Netcraft is as good as pulling numbers out of a hat. Without detailed
knowledge of the sites infrastructure, you're just guessing if the numbers
are right or not.
> 3) The statement you quote has nothing to do with your arguments. You
> should have selected something more apropos than what you did.
I think it has everything to do with his arguments.
> 4) No one claimed Netcraft numbers were 100% accurate. I only claimed
that
> they were accurate enough to get some information from. Your argument
seems
> to be that because the numbers aren't 100% correct they must be 0%
correct.
> It seems to me there are a bunch of levels in between... or perhaps you
only
> like boolean logic.
Yes, *IF* netcraft were to filter obviously inaccurate numbers, and *IF* you
look at the numbers as an average you'll get some number which *MIGHT* have
some accuracy over a given period of time. However, Win2k hasn't been out
long enough to gain those kinds of benchmarks. Tell me, how many sites can
you find still running a 2.2.0 or 2.2.1 kernel? I doubt you'll find any.
They're either running a very stable 2.0.x kernel or a recent 2.2.1x kernel.
Either way, they're running on a system which has had most of the bugs
shaken out of it due to it's long time useage.
By asking for a Win2k system that's been up since it was released, you're
asking for the equivelant of a Linux system running 2.2.0 with an uptime
since it's release. It aint gonna happen.
>
> Adam Ruth
>
> "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:XfT_5.95089$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:91g8t7$16ns$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > : This statement clearly implies that one reason Netcraft numbers for
> > Windows
> > : are lower is because Windows sys admins, as a whole, are less
> experienced
> > : than Unix sys admins. But at the same time, Unix requires more work
and
> > : knowledge than an equivalent Unix system. Okay, let's go with that
> > : assumption. It can mean one of three things:
> >
> > Your statement is clearly as flawed as the Netcraft numbers are about
NT.
> To
> > start with Netcraft can not provide uptime numbers for the following
> > versions, quote from Netcraft side
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#os :
> >
> > "Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;
> > .
> > .
> > NT3/Windows 95
> > NT4 SP4, SP6 [and the information from service pack 5 seems unreliable]
> > .
> > .
> > Additionally, NT4 uptimes cycle back to zero after 49.7 days, and give
> > timestamps exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at this precise
> > point"
> >
> > Furthermore, if the site uses TCP/IP based server load balancing
> equipment,
> > that in itself can throw off the uptime reporting. Not to mention the
fact
> > that if HTTP proxying involved, then Netcraft will not receive report
from
> > the actual web server, rather the intermediate machine will report the
> > uptime number. The intermediate machine could be Check Point FW-1 on
*nix
> > platform, in which case Netcraft records a firewall on *nix uptime. For
> all
> > we know a site is reported as some sort of *nix, in actuality the site
> might
> > have server load balancing equipment behind the firewall with NT based
web
> > servers. I built and manage such commercial web sites, Check Point on
> Nokia
> > boxes front end and load balancing equipment for NT servers on the back
> end.
> >
> > Otto
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel to pull out of Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:58:31 -0600
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > You're forgetting that a distribution may have some GPL'd software and
some
> > non-GPL'd software. You're free to copy the GPL'd stuff, but not the
> > non-GPL'd stuff, which means you need to examine the license of piece of
> > software on the distro unless you can be reasonably assured (ala debian)
> > that everything is indeed free to copy.
>
> The ftp site for a distribution will not contain any code that is not
legal to
> download, so you are quite safe in downloading anything you want and
making
> copies.
If it's the official distribution site, sure. The OP said this:
> Other than possibly Corel linux I cannot think of any way
> thay[sp] downloading a distro instead of buying it could ever be illegal
My point was that if you're downloading a non-gpl'd distro, even if it
contains some GPL'd code would be illegal.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:01:45 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91gmul$s0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Donn Miller" <dmmillerzoominternet.net> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Microsoft does not make or design mice, they were (at the time that
> >> > the scrollwheel was introduced) repackaged logitech mice, designed
> >> > by logitech engineers. :)
> >>
> >> I don't know if I'd want to give any more money to MS, even though I've
> > heard
> >> that MS mice are pretty good. Does Logitech get any of the profits
from
> >> those MS mice?
>
> > Note the smiley at the end of his sentance. He wasn't serious.
>
> Well, not entirely anyhow. Microsoft does indeed not make hardware.
> Their mice are indeed repackaged.
Well, the certainly do a fine job of repackaging, right down to the silk
screening of the MS logo on the circuit boards.
Where did you hear this? Sure, they may outsource the actual production,
but it's not just repackaged Logitech hardware.
If that were the case, Logitech hardware wouldn't suck so much. (All the
logitech hardware i've used has had all kinds of quirks)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:03:57 -0600
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a3c0a6d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91gmul$s0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Donn Miller" <dmmillerzoominternet.net> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Microsoft does not make or design mice, they were (at the time that
> > >> > the scrollwheel was introduced) repackaged logitech mice, designed
> > >> > by logitech engineers. :)
> > >>
> > >> I don't know if I'd want to give any more money to MS, even though
I've
> > > heard
> > >> that MS mice are pretty good. Does Logitech get any of the profits
> from
> > >> those MS mice?
> >
> > > Note the smiley at the end of his sentance. He wasn't serious.
> >
> > Well, not entirely anyhow. Microsoft does indeed not make hardware.
> > Their mice are indeed repackaged.
>
> ...and Logitech DOES indeed make a wheel mouse. So you could buy from them
> directly if you don't want to give money to MS.
MS's mice are *NOT* repackaged Logitech mice. For christs sake, all it
takes is a brain to notice that MS's mice had the wheel 6+ months before
Logitech decided to add one. MS also had the new optical mouse first,
Logitech licensed the technology about 6 months later again (as did Apple).
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:05:15 -0500
> This statement is clearly and demonstrably false.
> Linux is not for the appliance computer user who says that
> Windoze is easy because it came preinstalled on the computer
> and that Linux is too much trouble. I think the folks that get
> into trouble are the ones that go off half cocked, install
> Linux without another way to get the tons of online documentation
> and help and then are frustrated beyond belief because they
> wouldn't know DHCP from DNS if it hit them in the face.
Now, wait a minute here, let's be honest... I'm still a Linux newbie, and
lemme tell you...Linux is most definetly more difficult to configure /
Install than windows. On the hardware Linux supports well (1-2 years old),
both will install without a too much complaining. But try to get drivers for
a brand new ATA100 card or a Radeon video card to work in linux when you
don't know how to install them. Command line interfaces are an absolute
mess. They are too difficult to visualize quickly esp. for new users. I
think OEMS have to start developing drivers for their hardware for Linux as
well as the more common OSes.
Also, Linux distroes must get a working GUI on the system asap in the
installation process, so it's easy for IT guys/Joe Q. Everyuser to navigate
through it, albeit with a basic VESA video driver.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
