Linux-Advocacy Digest #970, Volume #30 Tue, 19 Dec 00 03:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (David Steinberg)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux is awful ("Michael")
Re: 7.2 is not up to the standard ("Mahno Propokopovich Kirgudu")
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Woofbert)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (Kasper Dupont)
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: 19 Dec 2000 05:25:43 GMT
Chad C. Mulligan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Not really, but they didn't stop development on the released products
: either. Service Packs 4, 5 and 6 all included feature's not available on
: the original NT package.
So? The date on linux-2.2.18 at kernel.org is Dec. 11. 2.2.17 is
Sep. 4. 2.2.16 is Jun 7. Obviously they didn't stop development on this
"product" either. Would you care to make another weak excuse for
Microsoft?
Or would you like to finally admit that software is often later than
people expect it, whether it is open-source or closed-source. And that
this says nothing at all about the health of open source?
: > But I'm confused. You just said that if a project is more than a year
: > late, the company inolved will fail. You then said that Windows 2000 was
: > two years late. Doesn't that mean that Microsoft should now be failing?
: You are confused.
Your baseless implications could leave anyone confused. One minute you're
implying that late software == failing business, the next you're saying
the opposite.
Get your story straight.
: I didn't say that a company will necessarily fail if a product is
: late. If it is their only product probably. Win2K isn't MS's only
: child though. What's RH's fall back product?
Red Hat does not simply ship the Linux kernel. The latest Red Hat had a
new version of the windowing system, a new version of several desktops, a
new compiler (in my opinion, a mistake, but that's not really relevant to
the question and hand) and, in fact, a minor upgrade of the kernel.
Since Red Hat and other distributors release collections of software from
many different sources, it doesn't matter how long passes between major
releases of a single project. There will always be new software in Red
Hat's regularly timed releases.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 05:37:44 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91m7of$48l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > > The USB layer under Linux doesn't support full soft-enumeration of
> the
> > > > > devices under the BUS in perputiaty. WHICH IS THE POINT OF USB!
> > > >
> > > > What the heck are you trying to say?!
> > >
> > > TRANSLATION: You plug it in, and poof, it works, PERIOD.
> >
> > That doesn't happen in Windows, either.
>
> Really? I plug a USB device in, Windows detects it, asks me to wait while
it
> gather info about the device, install drivers if it has ones, ask for
> drivers if it doesn't.
> And that is *all*.
> Next time that I'll plug the device, the driver will be loaded
automatically
> and I'll be able to use device I plugged in immediately.
Try plugging a Kensington video camera into a Toshiba laptop. It goes
through the motions you describe for loading the software, but then
when you try to use it, the machine crashes....
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 05:54:06 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > : The arrow keys went left arrow/up arrow/down arrow/right arrow.
> > > : Exactly the motions that the h, j, k and l commands perform in "vi".
> > > : I assumed that Bill Joy (or whoever) put in hjkl because of
familiarity
> > > : with VT-100 arrow keys.
> > >
> > > The story I'd heard is that Bill Joy's terminal actually had
> > > little arrows drawn on the keycaps right on the hjkl keys, and so
> > > that's what he used. The fact that this was fast because it was
> > > under the right hand (well, shifted off by one key) was not a planned
> > > benefit. It was sort of accidental.
> > Why were the arrows drawn on his keycaps?
>
> Part of the factory production, in fact.
They were probably used with the control key. H makes sense for
the left arrow, since control-h is the backspace chararacter, J makes
sense as the down arrow since control-j is a linefeed, control-k
is a vertical tab (is that upward?) but L must just be there for symmetry.
Control-l is a form-feed.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:43:37 +1000
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:43:06 +1000, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:91hc5f$9ev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> Most recent Linux dist does have it.
> >> I believe it's called Lizard, or something like that.
>
> >Isn't that the Caldera installation program?
>
> Yes, it is. It can also be run after installation to adjust your X
> configuration.
>
Ahh.....
For the rest of think I remember COAS, but thought it should really be
CAOS... ;)
-,m
------------------------------
From: "Mahno Propokopovich Kirgudu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,alto.linux.sux
Subject: Re: 7.2 is not up to the standard
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:09:20 -0500
The notorious wintroll strikes again. Hi claire (aka swango aka some other
shit!)
You get a resounding SPNAK declared upon you for being so lame.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:47:22 +0800, "Cheng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >what's up with you man
> >
> >Don't think of it as whining. you stupid
> >This is a comment.
> >I like Mandrake and I hope they can improve their products, you stupid
silly
> >pathetic MORON.
> >
> >Stop defending Mandrake as something untouchable, uncommetable. Every
> >product is not perfect. Face this simple fact!!!
>
> Obviously he has been brainwashed by a Penguinista Cocktail. You're
> right, nothing "is" perfect, and Linux is a far from perfect as one
> can get.
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Peter Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:fby_5.16878$I5.190310@stones...
> >> /snip
> >>
> >> so stick with suse 7.0 and stop whinging a Mandrake group then
> >
>
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[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
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:13:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > You cannot teach people that killing is wrong by killing people.
>
> Why not? No one needs to be taught anything is wrong. They need to be
> shown that their action causes an immediate and equal reaction.
>
> It seems to me that we just need to speed up the reaction time. If
> you know that by killing someone that society PROMISES you'll be dead
> yourself within an hour of the verdict in your speedy trial, I think
> that would deter.
>
> Don't get me wrong though, I'm against capital punishment solely
> because (in my opinion) most prosecutors are evil liars who stop at
> nothing to win.
>
> The indians had courts and as soon as you were found guilty of murder
> the judge (Chief) stabbed you to death on the spot. Now THATS swift
> justice!
>
>
Ahhh, the Zero Tolerance thing. If parents treated their kids the way
you propose the government treat its citizens, Child Protection Services
would take the kids away and lock up the parents!
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, InfernoSoft Datadroid
http://www.infernosoft.com/company/techsupport.html
"Inside every Microsoft application, there are
several simple programs trying to get out."
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:22:58 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Seems like people are having trouble naming ONE THING
> Microsoft invented.
>
> So I'll try it again on it's OWN THREAD.
>
> Name one thing, just one thing Microsoft actually
> invented.
Regedit - the 'real' windows user interface.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:56:40 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Colin R. Day
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:19:33 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Colin R. Day
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:41:15 -0500
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >the_blur wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> the
> >> >> > only way to protect this country. Can you PROVE the contrary?
> >> >>
> >> >> Your statement:
> >> >> Maybe our insulting Microsoft is the only way to protect this country.
> >> >>
> >> >> The negative / contrary statement to the above is:
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe our insulting Microsoft is NOT the only way to protect this country.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think we can agree that he statement above is in theory at least, true. =)
> >> >> I think that's why we have armed forces =)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >As long as they don't use NT on warships!
> >>
> >> The problem was not with NT, but with an application that couldn't
> >> handle divide by zero, and ultimately disabled the ship for
> >> various reasons.
> >
> >And FreeBSD wouldn't have handled that more robustly?
>
> Unknown. I was under the apprehension that the application died
> precipitously; since the app was the one communicating to the
> ship's systems (using NT's drivers such as serial drivers, or
> Ethernet), the operating system could be up, but the ship dead
> in the water.
>
> I could be wrong -- but I doubt FreeBSD would have helped or hurt,
> given that set of circumstances. It is also possible that a naive
> application in FreeBSD wouldn't have crashed because of a
> /0 error, however -- I don't know since I don't have FreeBSD.
> If that is the case, then a /0 error on NT could have very well
> suspended the process, prior to killing it (did it show
> a "critical application fault" dialog or something?) which would have
> hung things. A /0 on FreeBSD, by contrast, might give NaNs, which
> may or may not have been harmful depending on how the result is used.
>
> This is all of course pure speculation on my part. Personally,
> I think FreeBSD would be an excellent choice for industrial control
> applications. :-) Linux would be almost as good, and might
> be easiler to sell (buzzwords, yuck).
>
> NT? It might make its way onto office-bound desktops, where
> reliability is less of a concern and glitz is the top priority.
> I hope the Navy isn't like that, though.
In the navy, it's ALL about reliability.
>
> >
> >Colin Day
> >
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> up 84 days, 17:13, running Linux.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Kasper Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:51:50 +0100
jtnews wrote:
>
> The Intel Easy PC camera is not supported in Linux!
> You can't even write a driver for it!
>
> I got it as a "free" add-on with my new Dell Dimension
> L600cx, but now it seems I made the wrong choice!
>
> Why does a $40 cheapo camera have to be proprietary for
> Intel? I thought Intel made all their money because they make
> huge volumes of flash memory chips over their competitors.
>
> I better choose the Lexmark color printer as a free add on next
> time!
>
Of course it is posible to write a driver for that
camera, but you would have to reverse engineer the
protocols.
Depending on how it is connected you could hook in
a piece of hardware or software to watch the
communication.
I don't understand Intel's policy, a Linux driver
would allow more people to use the camera and then
they could expect to sell more cameras. But
perhaps they have some secret agreement with MS.
--
Kasper Dupont
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:39:19 -0500
chrisv wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >But INFERIOR OPERATING SYSTEMS ==> Inferior applicatoins.
> >
> >There's no getting around this.
>
> Wrong again. While Windoze is undeniably a crappy OS, it does have
> the best apps, both in quality and quantity. Obviously with some
> exceptions to the rule.
Oh Really?
....name for me just ONE CAD program ON WINDOWS used by a major
manufacturer (automotive, aerospace, etc.)
The fact of the matter is, the productivity is higher on a 50 MHz
Sun than it is on a 750 MHz Wintel box. (15x faster CPU clock rate).
Why is that?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:34:49 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > A small embedded ROM system can be an OS. The X window system,
though
> > > > > vastly more complicated, and in some ways similar to an OS, is not
an
> > > > > OS. The same goes for MS Windows.
> > > >
> > > > X Windows does not offer scheduling, memory management, file
systems,
> > etc...
> > >
> > > Not relevant.
> >
> > It's completely relevant. An OS provides these things. If it doesn't,
it's
> > not an OS.
>
> DOS does not do scheduling, but it is an OS, X does have an amount of
> memory management. And many embedded operating systems do not have file
> systems. Thus not relevant.
DOS does do scheduling, but it schedules things like interrupts. File
systems are an example of I/O, which is what an OS controls. Typically an
OS does things which a program cannot (or does not) itself do, such as
arbitrating time-slices, knowing how to talk to I/O devices, etc...
Technically, an OS is just another program. As such, your arguments about
what is and isn't an OS is largely meaningless, since to a Java program, the
JVM is the OS, yet to the JVM, whatever API it uses is the OS, which itself
may use an API for what it thinks is the OS.
> > Oh, that explains why all those Linux-only systems out there run Lilo
then.
>
> No, LILO is a convenience. As stated. While it is not absolutely
> necessary, it saves the hassle of running fdisk to change the OS in
> which you boot.
Again, that explains why all those Linux-only system use Lilo. The real
reason is that if they used your method, they could not construct a
partition table.
> > > You seem to be confusing Windows 9x with NT. I refer you to Andrew
> > > Schulman's book "Unauthorized Windows 95, Developers Resource Kit" or
> > > "Inside Windows 95" by Adrian King. (MS Press). Or you could download
> > > the Windows DDK and read the help files.
> >
> > No, I'm not. I've read Unauthorized Windows 95 at least a dozen times
and
> > know it inside and out.
> >
> > For instance, page 146 states what DPMI is:
> >
> > "DPMI stands for DOS Protected Mode Interface [...] Despite the name,
DPMI
> > isn't the same thing as a DOS extender. Instead, DPMI is a set of INT
2Fh
> > and INT 31h services you can use to write a DOS extender thats
compatible
> > with Windows or 386 memory managers".
> >
> > In other words, Windows is itself a memory manager, and provides a DPMI
> > interface to DOS applications and DOS extenders. Windows itself is not
a
> > DOS extender.
>
> I will not argue with Schulman's factual observations, because they are
> largely accurate. I disagree with his conclusions, which are
> questionable. DPMI is the interface by which Windows manages page
> manipulation and memory management as well as other things.
>
> The Windows 386 executive is a DPMI provider. It always has been. The
> Windows system VM runs in a DPMI virtual machine. This is verifiable.
Given that the Windows system VM itself is what controls the VM's, you seem
to have created a circular redundancy. If the VMM controls all other VM's,
then how can it, itself live in a DPMI VM? The part you are missing out on
is that Windows requires a DPMI server to create the VMM, but then it
replaces it. This is sumarized on page 171 by a chart which shows the
version numbers returned before and after Win386 is loaded.
In order for a "DPMI virtual machine" to exist, there must be code running
as the DPMI server. The DPMI server cannot itself be running in a DPMI
virtual machine.
> > Many people do consider emacs to be an OS.
>
> Yes, many people think that velvita is cheese but we must feel sorry for
> their stupidity.
Velveeta is derived from cheese.
> > > You are most completely wrong here. I direct you to any number of
pieces
> > > of documentation in the 9x DDKs, but the most handy reference is page
21
> > > of Andrew Schulman's "Unauthorized Windows 95, a Developers Resource
> > > Kit."
> >
> > Correct, sort of. I misapplied the term "VM" to mean "Address space".
In
> > reality, the term VM means simulating a single machine. But, unlike
Windows
> > 3.x, which runs all windows programs in the same address space, Windows
9x
> > runs all programs in their own unique address spaces (with shared system
> > address areas).
>
> You are back peddling here. You are covering up for being wrong. I said
> right up front that they had process memory isolation by page table
> manipulation and that they run in the same VM. You said they had their
> own VM. You were wrong, be a man, admit it.
No, you said "Take a look low down dude. The Windows executive is a DPMI
environment and Windows run in a virtual DOS machine within it. BTW: Windows
runs in the same virtual machine as the actual DOS OS because each Windows
program has to have a DOS PSP."
This is verifiably wrong. Yes, it's true that Windows programs have to have
a DOS PSP, but that isn't related to running in the same VM as the DOS VM.
Those are merely data structures which are mapped into the same virtual
memory.
Yes, I was wrong when I used the term VM. That was the wrong term to use
(and you can tell exactly what I was saying because I used the words address
space specifically). I am also guilty of not completely reading what you
wrote after that because I thought you were just repeating yourself.
> > > You are thinking about how NT runs Windows applications which is
totally
> > > different.
> >
> > Yes and no. NT runs the Win32 subsystem in the same VM as the Win32
> > applications. The NT Kernel (not Win32 kernel) runs in a seperate VM
> > though.
>
> This is wrong too. Windows NT runs 32 bit applications in their own VM.
> It runs 16 bit applications in a single VM, but you can optionally run a
> 16 bit application in its own VM.
>
> One can also run 16 bit applications in the same VM as 32 bit
> application if the 32 bit application starts the 16 bit application
> within its VM, you can even thunk to it.
NT runs 16 bit Windows in a virtual DOS machine, it's a program called WOW,
or Windows on Windows. I know you know this, so I don't understand why I
have to explain it. You can see this in the task list when running 16 bit
code, you will see wowexec running indented under the NTVDM process. The
checkbox to run 16 bit processes in their own VM merely runs each program in
it's own wow, in it's own VDM. 32 bit programs all run under the same Win32
VM, since this virtualization is identical between applications.
> > The picture you mention contradicts what you said. You said:
> >
> > > > > Also, take a look at Andrew Schulman's book "Unauthorized Windows"
> > which
> > > > > tells of how DOS is in the system VM, and its extensive dependency
on
> > > > > DPMI.
> >
> > Clearly from Schulman's picture, DOS is *NOT* in the system VM nor does
it
> > detail how Windows depends on DPMI, only that it provides extensive DPMI
> > services.
>
> If you spent the time to read the text surrounding the picture, it makes
> big mention that Microsoft has left DOS out of this picture.
Yes, but it does *NOT* say that DOS runs in the same VM as the System VM.
In fact, other parts of the book specifically say that it runs it's DOS
dependant code in a *SEPERATE* VM under Windows control. Furthermore, DOS
needs to run in V86 VM, while the System VM is *NOT* running in a V86 VM.
> The paragraph starts with:
>
> "In the meantime, there's one very noticeable feature of this diagram:
> MS-DOS is missing" and goes on to explain, that DOS is present only left
> out of the diagram for marketing purposes.
>
> That whole chapter explains and verifies everything I written here, and
> the only difference between Schulman's position and mine, is that I
> don't believe Windows is an OS.
There also seem to be factual differences between your position and
Schulmans, as illustrated above.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:30:36 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Swangoremovemee
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> > on Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:59:09 GMT
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:22:25 -0800, Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Funny you should mention Drestin and MSFT stock in the
> > >>same sentence. Anyone recall Drestin's recommendation
> > >>on COMNA (back around Valentine's Day IIRC) to buy
> > >>MSFT (at over 100) because MSFT *always* goes up
> > >>upon a new OS release - W2K at the time. He sure
> > >>got that one right, didn't he? MSFT closed at 58 and
> > >>change today - a 40+ % loss.
> > >
> > >
> > >And RedHat is closing offices all over the world including one in New
> > >England.
> >
> > And this means Linux is in major trouble?
>
> This mean that commercial support for Linux is in trouble.
HP
IBM
SUN
> I don't know many corporations that will risk using an OS if they can't call
> support and ask for help.
> The Internet is a great thing, but relaying on the good-will of other people
> is just not what corporations do.
> This is why they buy support contract.
>
> And if this will continue, I won't be surprise that by 2005 there will only
> be one Linux distribution (a *good* thing, IMO, because LSB doesn't cover a
> lot of things) and it's likely to be Debian.
>
> Think of this this way, if RedHat goes down, Mandrake will be in trouble,
> its dist are largely Redhat based, there are plenty of linux dist that relay
> on RH, for that matter.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
