Linux-Advocacy Digest #250, Volume #31 Thu, 4 Jan 01 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux, it is great. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Why NT? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Red Hat dead/dying? (James Hutchins)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... (Andres Soolo)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 21:10:13 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Linus is not paid to do this. Transmeta hired him for his knowledge of
> > the x86 design, not of Linux.
>
> Oh, right. Transmeta will sit there and require Linus to work off the clock
> to do things (including porting to Transmeta chips) which benefit Transmeta.
> Not.
And is Transmeta such a Linux company that they would have hired
Linus to do Linux development?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 21:16:02 -0500
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but that's probably not the case. How did Compaq prevent
> Microsoft
> > > > from continuing its support of Alpha?
> > > >
> > >
> > > MS is continueing support of existing products on Alpha but Compaq has
> > > refused to give MS access to the newer platforms, so MS at Compaq's
> > > insistance stopped future development.
> > >
> >
> > And what kind of support did Intel give to Linux when Linus first
> > started working on it?
> >
>
> The data books for all Intel processors are available by simply writing
> Intel's marketing department and asking for them.
>
OK, then, what support did DEC give the Linux community to port
Linux to Alpha?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 21:18:14 -0500
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > There may still be more options in Linux, at least for
> > certains kinds of apps, like word processing/typesetting.
> >
>
> HUH?? Seems to me that the WP/Typesetting (Excepting specialized apps) are
> a subset of those available for Windows.
>
Most Linux distros come with TeX/LATeX, lout and some version of troff.
Do any of these come with Windows? (I know that TeX/LATeX is
available for Windows)
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 02:55:16 GMT
In article <%XW46.145505$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
>
> > Perceptions. The corporate executive decision maker who signs the
> > checks rarely has "battlefield experience" with UNIX, Linux, or
> > even NT servers. His primary knowledge generally consists of
> > NT workstation and possibly mainframe or VMS experience.
>
> Back in my Digital days, UNIX was not seen by
> marketing as an OS of choice,
> as most _business_ customers
> complained it was "hard to use".
I've told this story a few times, but here it is again.
When I was working at Computer Consoles back in 1983, we purchased
some VAX 11/7x0 Minicomputers because we wanted to run Berkely 4.0
on it (BSD had just released).
Unfortunately, the DEC reps got almost NO commission on BSD and
HUGE commissions on VMS, not to mention huge commissions on VMS
applications. The DEC rep saw 4 huge vaxen in our computer rooms
but no $2 million bonus and commission checks.
DEC published a fix tape for VMS and the DEC rep decided to come
up and "FIX" the CCI vaxen. He came unannounced, managed to get
upstairs and into the computer room, and proceeded to format
the RM80 drive (which had root and /usr partitions on it) and
installed VMS and applied the service pack.
Of course, there were 200 users plugged into these machines (not
much more powerful 80386/4 with 2 500 meg drives) who were suddenly
all over the sysadmin because the computer was down.
The sales rep looked so happy and proud. He said "I came here to
fix up your VMS system and realized some hacker had been playing
with the disk drive, so I reinstalled VMS and applied that bug fix.
The sysadmin smiled, walked the rep down to the guard's desk,
and gently tugged the man's shoulder as he got the guard's attention.
He then said to the guard; "Get to know this man's face very well.
If he attempts to leave this desk without me present - shoot him!
Eventually, the Rep would make an appointment to come, after hours,
at which time, the sysadmin would remove the UNIX drive from the RM80
and install a "dummy VMS pack" that couldn't even see the 6 300 meg
CDC "washing-machine" drives sitting next to each processor.
> > In fact, DEC laid off thousands of VMS people who were left without
> > a market. Many simply learned what they could about NT and learned
> > to create great powerpoint presentations, word documents, and excel
> > spreadsheets. The really slick ones learned Project and Access.
>
> Thousands of VMS people? There weren't
> that many working at Spitbrook.
> A few hundred maybe. The rest of us (the thousands
> you mention) with VMS skills moved on - in my case,
> UNIX and Windows.
According to the press releases DEC reduce the VMS staffing by over
3000 people. I believe the entire series of staffing cuts was nearly
5000 of 8000 from 1990 to the time of their merger with Compaq. This
included sales, marketing, manufacturing, and field support.
And yes, many of them did learn UNIX.
> As for powerpoint/word/excel etc. yes, I use them,
> but hardly enough to say I know them that well.
You learned UNIX. I'd like to see Compaq do something exciting
with True 64 on Alpha for around $2000. Sun is offering their
Ultra 5 at about that same price-point.
> Your comments come across as insulting propoganda, BTW.
I think UNIX lovers and VMS lovers have a mutual respect
for each other, but they get frustrated with each other's machines.
I loved BLISS and RDB, but RMS and DCL were a PAIN!!!
The other problem I had was when I had to supervise some VMS
programmers who had written a very complex system in VAX BASIC.
They literally had to tweak the code every single day.
When the main programmer went on vacation, we had to call him
on his cell phone to learn some of the magic spells (he actually
changed code definitions twice a week).
> > It didn't matter matter that their
> > databases were twice as big as they
> > should be, that their Project plans
> > were nearly always "90% complete
> > even when the project was 500% late,
> > and 800% over budget. Even if
> > you had to fire half the staff,
> > you could bury the dead bodies and
> > celebrate the eventual successful
> > deployment (even if that deployment
> > was ultimately to a UNIX system).
>
> The databases we used were Digital's RDB
> (it was bought by Oracle), Oracle
> and Informix, both running on Digital UNIX.
Yes. Very nice system. RDB was one of the best
parts of VMS. The overruns I was talking about
were the NT projects which were based on estimates
that were competitive with UNIX bids.
> We tried to sell customers a MOTIF
> style desktop but they were rejected -
> why - COST! It was far cheaper to buy a
> Windows 95 PC and use _that_ as a
> front end.
By the time Windows 95 had come out, web browsers
were free and worked on everything from Windows 3.1
to Windows NT (3.51) and Windows 95. Even better,
it actually WORKED! Many thick client projects
were canceled because DLL interactions and IPC
incompatibilities between Windows 3.1, NT 3.51, and 95
were making even simple dialogues a pain.
The problem was that X11 for Windows 3.1 was horribly buggy
(windows DLLs would crash), Windows 95 was only slightly
better, and NT 4.0 had traffic limits. One of the earliest
successes of Linux desktops was a site that used X11 for
monitoring network traffic. Win95 on a large desktop machine
failed. Windows NT on a huge desktop machine (128 meg RAM, 4 gig
drive, 100/T LAN...) also crashed every few hours.
Someone, mostly as a joke put Linux on an OLD laptop with about 32 meg
of RAM, a 500 meg hard drive, and a 100 Mhz pentium, and let
one of the administrators test it.
When the team came back to get the laptop (since they hadn't heard
anything, they figured the test had failed), the admin told them
in no uncertain term that not only could the NOT have that laptop,
but he wanted more just like it.
The company was Southwest Bell and within a few months they had
Linux running on over 100 workstations.
> So we rewrote our massive text based front end as a GUI on Windows.
Dedicated "Thick Client" GUI or Web browser interface?
It's funny how "the curses program from hell" turns into a trivial
CGI or "mod_perl" script.
> > Hey, if you can get someone else to take the fall for reccomending
> > Microsoft Windows for a project over UNIX or Linux, you can look
> > good, get promoted, and get free trips to Redmond.
>
> Like I said, our customers did not want to spend money on UNIX. Linux
> wasn't good enough then - the GUI wasn't developed enough.
Linux was gaining acceptance as a server. The GUI was actually
superior to Windows 3.1 or 3.51 but it took almost 4 months to emulate
the Windows 95 desktop. Ironically, when users were given the
choice between fvwm2, fvwm95, afterstep, and KDE, the "windows 95
look and feel" wasn't that popular.
As a server, Windows 95 wasn't going to cut it, Windows 3.51 wasn't
up to it either. Windows NT 4.0 really wasn't "ready for real work"
until Service Pack 4 and even then only with about 1/2 GIG of RAM
in the server.
Windows 2000 is MUCH BETTER. But it still isn't near as good as
Linux and UNIX are.
> > I have "rescued" a number of managers who were days from the firing
> > squad. What's ironic as that one or two UNIX programmers were able
> > to do in a few days what an army of Windows "Gurus" had failed to
> > do in months. In one case, I was able to implement a project in
> > less than a week that had taken an entire organization over 1 year
> > to implement unsuccessfully.
>
> If the tools don't exist on Linux or UNIX, what's the point?
> Granted, we have Gnome and KDE _now_ they weren't that good
> a few years ago.
The biggest problem was that you had Microsoft stuffing shovelware
into every PC, which included the latest versions of Office. Linux
actually had interchange and Office capabilities as early as 1994
(Applix) and WordPerfect in 1996. Netscape Communicator was
originally concieved as a replacement for Microsoft Office that
could be run on Windows or Linux. Since it saved documents in
HTML format, all documents could be read by nearly any web browser.
Microsoft responded with "Front Page" and "Front Page Extensions"
which created some ugly security holes in the server. The holes
are pretty much plugged up now, but there were some real problems
early on.
Even today, Microsoft offers "save as HTML" but the HTML generated
is nearly impossible to work with as HTML.
The big thing that HTML lacked was a printer format that included
support for page feeds. Many people would stick form feeds in
the text area, but that didn't always work for all printers.
Of course, we also had a postscript editor, drawing tools, and
Klyx. Ironically, UNIX was actually the FIRST system to have
an integrated Office Suite. The Andrew User Interface System
was actually the granddaddy of the "Integrated Office Suite"
genre. It was in use at MIT, Caragie Mellon, and several other
Athena institutions.
The SCO Open Desktop had one of the first commercially integrated
suites. Unfortunately, IBM was pushing OS/2, BookManager, and
a suite they eventually scuttled when they bought Lotus. SCO
didn't want to share with Linux, and by the time SGML and HTML
became popular on the Web, Netscape Navigator and Hot Metal had
rendered AUIS nearly obsolete.
What was really amusing for me was making the switch from a Sun
Sparc 10 workstation to Windows 3.1 on a 486/33 with 4 meg of RAM.
If I'd never seen the Sparc, I'd probably have settled into the
crippleware on Windows. But since I'd already been spoiled with
OpenView, Applix (Aster*x), and Sun Project, not to mention real-time
statistics on Sun Net Manager (which we also used to track cash flow
in real-time), going to Windows was torture.
I still use Windows because there are still Windows-only applications
I haven't taken the time and money to license and configure under
Linux. The "uglies" include Lotus notes 4.5 (5.0 runs under Wine
quite nicely though), Microsft Project (I have gotten Project 95 to
work under WINE), and that's really about it. I use Star Office
to create and read "Word" documents. I usually request "rtf" files
where possible, and the remaining Windows Applications are pretty
much bandaids bundled together to work around limitations of legacy
versions of Windows.
My favorite example of this type of "band-aid" strategy is Lotus Notes.
When lotus notes was introduced, Windows 3.1 was being installed on
disks that required allocation blocks (clusters) of up to 32 kbytes
per file. There was no security, no login, and no real multitasking.
On UNIX systems, the most popular mail reader was MH. MH would
recieve e-mail files containing multiple messages, burst them into
individual files (one file per message), and a set of simple commands
allowed you to read or page through messages at will. The mail system
was a bunch of components, including servers and clients that worked
together. You could fetchmail, burst it using MH, read it and post
it using sendmail. Since the UNIX system already had security at
the user login level, and the file system could be protected from
reading, writing, and execution by others, and files could be shared
between small, centrally administered groups, mail was pretty to
manage because the Operating System (UNIX) did about 90% of the
work.
Trying to move this technology to Windows 3.1 was a problem. Most
messages were less than a few hundred bytes, but Windows set the
minumum file size to 32K. Lotus solved the problem by putting all
the messages in a "database", which was essentially a repository for
a bunch of smaller message objects. Since the workstation wasn't
secure (and firewalls hadn't been invented yet), Lotus also
had to provide the security. Each user was given a floppy with
an "ID File" on it. This was the only way to pass public keys
safely back in those days. Finally, because Windows 3.1
multitasking wasn't up to time-sensitive file transfers over
high speed serial or ethernet links, Lotus had to handle it's
own "fetchmail" (replication to local). Finally, because anyone
could walk up to a Windows 3.1 workstation, reboot it, and view
the files, the traffic often needed to be encrypted during
transmission and on the server.
The modern Linux or UNIX system has none of those limitations (Windows
2000 still has security and storage management issues as well as
problems with true multitasking). As a result, it is usually easier
to just use the KDE mailer (which is a GUI front-end to a popular
mail tool) or Netscape communicator.
Of course, Microsoft has been aware of this threat since at least
1993, and has been aware of the potential threat of UNIX since
at least 1990. Microsoft is particularly vulnerable to any version
of Linux that can be sold, preinstalled, fully functional and
configured for the hardware on which it is installed, for even
as much as 30% MORE than the cost of a comparable Windows system.
This was true with Windows 3.0 and is still true with Windows 2000.
Microsoft has spared no expense or legal maneuver to prevent
the general public from learning anything about Linux or UNIX, in
any flavor. The mass media is controlled through strategically
placed ads which are moved TO companies that ignore Linux and UNIX
and praise Microsoft as the only "True Religeon". McGraw-Hill
was literally forced to stop printing Byte Magazine because Microsoft
was not only pulling ads from Byte, but from most of the other
178 publications (at that time).
Most corporations are bound by nondisclosure agreements which
are clauses within their Enterprise License Agreements, their
"strategic partner" agreements, or their "MSDN Enterprise Edition
agreements". They can't publish anything without Microsoft's
prior written approval, Microsoft can rewrite the article to be
published, and Microsoft can say anything it wants to, whenever
it wants to. Microsoft's "partners" can't even disclose the
existence of a strategic relationship. On the other hand, Microsoft
can publish press releases which can make it appear that a single
Windows 2000 server is doing the work of an entire Farm of mainframes
and UNIX systems. The most dramatic examples of fraudelent
statements just this side of legal are their "Fast Facts" pages.
In some cases, you have to do some serious digging. In many others,
the real facts are in the disclaimer paragraphs at the end of the
page. A favorite was "Windows 2000 for Lexus/Nexus". The article
proceeds to describe the huge Lexus/Nexus repository and the huge
daily traffic loads. Then the article describes how the they
were switching from UNIX and Mainframes to Windows 2000. Later,
they point out that this application is really doing a select from
ODBC connected tables on the really big box (selecting only a few
fields) into a summary temp table on the Windows 2000 server. Once
they can match all the people who died and went bankrupt, they can
join the table by selecting from the subset which is only a few
thousand records, and search "the rest of the record" from the
original feed tables.
Furthermore, this is a batch job that is done in the background
using a queuing system that only pulls transactions during "idle time"
on the processor (low priority proccess pulling from the queue).
>From the description, there was also quite a bit of middleware which
was not described, and the mission critical information was always
kept on the UNIX/Mainframe farms.
Of course, I received this announcement, along with about 20 others,
from an executive who hadn't bothered to read the fine print.
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 02:59:51 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:08:09
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:57:30
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> [...]
> >> >> >The FL Supreme
> >> >> >Court was an example of liberal gerry-mandering in the process of
> >elections.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what diety-on-high proclaimed this to you? Rush Limbaugh?
> >> >
> >> >It was obvious to anyone that didn't have their head in the sand, like
you.
> >>
> >> Oh really? Liberal gerry-mandering? I hadn't heard that, and I got
> >> daily updates on the issue because I happen to be traveling at the time,
> >> and I like to watch the Today show and read the paper when I'm
> >> traveling.
> >
> >What do you call the otherwise inexplicable constitutional law-breaking
> >that the FL SC committed?
>
> A judicial decision which was overturned.
A judicial decision which was HIGHLY questionable and completely without
merit. Something completely out of the ordinary for educated legal
professionals with many years practicing law. To make a judicial decision
without citing any applicable law, violating the U.S. Constitution, the
Florida Constitution, and at least 2 state laws is not merely a "judicial
decision".
> Happens all the time.
Not like this. It has happened at most twice in the 20th century. I know
of one, but not the second, but I'm sure someone could find one.
This magnitude of legal incompetence (or bias) at a State Supreme Court level is
asstounding.
> Obviously, the fine arguments and inferential consideration of law does
> not equate in my mind to "inexplicable constitutional law-breaking".
They violated the 14th Amendment as well as the seperations clause of
the U.S. and Florida Constitutions. This was pointed out in both
of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in this matter.
> >You can call it whatever you want, but an
> >accurate description would be liberal gerry-mandering.
>
> Indeed, you cannot call it anything you want and remain a reasonable
> person, and I would surmise that calling it "liberal gerry-mandering" is
> the equivalent of declaring yourself an unreasonable person.
I have proven, on several occasions that there was, in fact, bias and
tampering with the election process in Florida by the Democrats. If you
with to keep your eyes close and ignore them, then that's fine, but
until you have any facts or evidence to say they didn't (which you don't,
or you would've produced it by now) I will not respond to, nor quote
any further remarks on the topic as I have clearly put it to rest and
established the facts.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Hutchins)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Red Hat dead/dying?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 15:53:10 -0500
http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,40513,00.html
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: 5 Jan 2001 03:19:01 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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)
That's funny logic. Basically, you're saying if MS mice actually were
Logitech mice, Logitech mice didn't suck because they were MS mice then.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The first myth of management is that it exists. The second myth of
management is that success equals skill.
-- Robert Heller
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 03:11:59 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:40:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:53:53 GMT;
> >>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>No, what well-known fact. Sheesh.
> >
> >This is what people learn these days, huh? Bunch of soft-headed
> >ignoramuses. The Supreme Court Decided, and that means the Democrats
> >were wrong, huh? Get the fuck out of my newsgroup.
>
> I think the fact that the vote was not unanimous and the fact that
> the Florida court even bothered to listen to the arguments put forth
> by the democrats in the first place implies that they at least had
> a reasonable case, and were probably justified in pursuing it.
I agree, that Democrats had a fairly reasonable case, but, given the
laws which were so plainly clear in this case, they had no hope of
winning. The Democrats should work in the legislature to change the
laws if they disagree with them, not get the FL Supreme Court to
change them on the fly (which violates the Constitution, by the way).
>
> It's funny how these Republican zealots accuse the dems of breaking
> the law
The FL Surpeme Court violated the U.S. Consitution Article 2,
the seperation clause (whichever Article that is in, I don't know
off the top of my head) and the 14th Amendment. Not to mention
they violated the FL Constitution and at least 2 Florida laws
approved by the FL Legislature.
> -- I'd argue that it's for the courts to decide how the laws
> are meant to be interpreted.
Of course. However, in this case, the FL Supreme Court re-wrote
the laws, which is clearly unconstitutional. This is the finding
of the U.S. Supreme Court in one unanimous decisions and another
nearly unanimous (there were two decisions in the final ruling,
about the FL Supreme Court and about the manual recounts).
Of 18 votes, 17 said that the FL Supreme Court overstepped its
bounds (or 9/9 and 8/9).
> The Rs prevailed,
No, the Rule of Law prevailed and Judical Activism lost.
> but it seems simple minded at best, dishonest at worst,
> to pigeon-hole it as a case of the democrats rewriting the rules.
It's a proven fact. Not only that, but all three canvassing boards
engaged in documented and filmed vote manufacturing and tampering.
At one point, the Miami board wanted to kick the people out so
they could tamper in private without proof.
> And it's even more dishonest to hold the supreme court on a pedestal,
> while at the same time dismissing the dissenting judges as "activist
> judges" or something of the sort. I mean, one can't have it both ways.
You have to look at their decisions. The FL Supreme Court acted without
merit on at least TWO occasions. In neither of their decisions did they
cite any applicable law. The one RULING they did cite was falsely
interpreted by the court and could cost Boise his bar license in Florida.
You can't make a decision like that that contradicts and rewrites an
existing law. Even worse, you can't do it and then not have anything
to back it up.
The FL Supreme Court disenfranchised all of Florida by rewriting a law
that the legislature that the PEOPLE voted into office wrote. That's
how this 3 branch government works you see.
The U.S. Surpeme Court found (rightfully and logically so) that the
FL Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution at worst, and at
least made a sweeping decisions without citing so much as one law.
There is no excuse for what the FL SC did, no matter how you sugar
coat it.
-Chad
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:38:06 -0500
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/03/2001
at 01:55 AM, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Again.....the very notion that one should need a manual for a
>terminal is indicative of the sorry level of programming standards at
>IBM.
ROTF,LMAO! What conceivable connection is there between the quality of
the hardware design and the level of software standards. The terminal
is hardware, and YOU were the fool who was defending IBM's hardware
designs.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:32:28 -0500
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/02/2001
at 05:25 PM, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Yes...with the Oakland County Schools machine, I "jumped to the
>conclusion" that xedit would file those characters, and ONLY those
>characters which I had entered into the editor. The assumption was
>contradicted by experience...that whenever I used xedit to modify an
>existing file, to append to the end of a line, the first step needed
>was to delete invisible characters which I never typed in.
That's flatly untrue. The only reason that you needed to delete those
blanks was because you chose to be in insert mode. And you jumped to a
number of other conclusions besides the one that you mention.
>Now...tell me...precisely what kind of SHITHEAD makes this the
>default behavior of an editor????
Have you stopped having sex with your dog? See, I can ask a question
that's really a statement too. If you weren't a total loser you'd find
out why they chose that default before calling them names.
>The OBSERVABLE behavior of xedit was the same at all four
>facilities... thereby contradicting your claim that I was "assuming"
>anything.
The observable behavior was the same, as was your total lack of
comprehension and as were your incorrect assumptions about the
behavior. Your observations don't contradict a thing that I said,
you're just too lazy to read up on the hardware.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
