Linux-Advocacy Digest #276, Volume #31 Fri, 5 Jan 01 19:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 2.4 finally made official (David Steinberg)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (Johan
Kullstam)
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Uptimes (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Nigel Feltham")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:09:48 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > There are file format converters available so that early versions of
> >Office
> >> > programs can open files from later versions. And, funnily enough,
> >they're
> >> > available free of charge from Microsoft's web site.
> >>
> >> Note that Microsoft did not offer these until AFTER forcing
> >> all competing WYSIWYG editors out of the market.
> >
> >What are you talking about? When Office 97 was released (in 1996) it
> >included the filter so that Word 95 could read Office 97 documents on the
CD
> >(as well as a free download).
>
> Well, he's talking about the fact that it wasn't until months later
> (ostensibly, long enough that 'network effect' caused the mass migration
> to the new version Microsoft was trying to force) that they released the
> filter so that Word 97 could *write* Word 95 documents. Whether the
> Word *95* filter was on the Word *97* CD is just a bit of arm-waving,
> I'm afraid.
it was also a free download.
Word97 could write documents readable by Word95 when it was released, it's
just that these files were actually in rtf format rather than Word95 format,
which made them much larger than they had to be. A service pack added the
ability to write to real word format.
> >> If a document does not contain any new (6.0 only) constructs, please
> >> give a rational, user-oriented reason why Word 5.0 can't read a Word
6.0
> >> document.
> >
> >Word 6 was windows based, Word 5 was text based. They include vastly
> >different formatting information.
>
> Why? Because Word 6 used a GUI? That's poppycock.
Yes. The formatting for a GUI document is entirely different from the
formatting of a DOS one. Fonts alone are different. They store different
properties and different values. It's different information.
> Besides, he's
> obviously talking about the "new numbering", and is unaware that there
> was no Word for Windows 5.0; it skipped from 2.0 to 6.0, in order to
> match WordPerfect's version numbering. They then abandoned that, and
> went to the Office numbering, with 97, 98, and 2000.
They skipped to 6 because Excel was at version 5 before, that's why Access
also went to 6. They wanted common numberings for all apps in the suite.
> >> The only reasons could be
> >>
> >> 1) Microsoft puts damn little thinking into designing extensible
> >> formats so that new formatting constructs can be added
> >> without breaking the previous file format
> >
> >The format was based on the original Word format of about 15 years ago.
>
> I though you said it was a matter of "vastly different formatting
> information"? Which is it?
It is, Word 6 couldn't understand the new information in Word 97 and would
probably store the wrong data in the wrong fields, since it's a binary
structure that's written to disk. This is the same format used originally
by Word, it's just that the structure changes when new data is added. Yes,
it's not extensible, but it is legacy.
> >> Or
> >>
> >> 2) Microsoft DELIBERATELY comes up with completely new, incompatible
> >> formats between editions for the SOLE PURPOSE of making
> >> older versions unable to read the default format of new
> >> versions.
> >
> >Why would they include the filters on the CD and make them avialable free
> >then?
>
> To ensure that people had a unidirectional method of infecting their
> implementations with the new version, of course. I should think that
> would be obvious, given the only filters they left conspicuously off of
> the CD, and you left out of your thereby empty posturing, was the one
> which would allow either the rejection of the new version or the
> coexistence of both. They didn't have to leave them all out, and in
> fact it wouldn't have suited their illegal monopolistic purposes if they
> had.
You're not making sense. What did they leave out? The new filter did allow
the coexistance of both.
> >> Given the fact that Microsoft has been in the habit of providing
> >> "free upgrades" for corporate officer's machines (ONLY!), making
> >> All documents coming from "the bosses" unreadable until the entire
> >> company also upgrades....
> >>
> >> .....which reason do *YOU* think it is?
> >
> >This is a fact? Please point me to where I can get free updates (i'm a
> >corproate officer of 2 different startups).
>
> Sorry; they don't do it for small-fry startups. Even ones with flaming
> Microsoft apologists as corporate officers.
So in other words, you made it up.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:03:34 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[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
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>
> Yes, but should I be REQUIRED To read a terminal manual just to edit a file
> without being subjected to idiotic behavior?
>
> According to the XEDIT crowd, the answer is yes.
>
> Considering that it has been 20 years since I first used an 3270 terminal,
> and have used them at FOUR different facilities...I have NEVER ONCE EVEN
> ***SEEN*** a 3270 manual.
>
> Now..how smart is it to write an editor in such a way that to get
> non-insane behavior, one must first read a hardware manual that is
> nowhere to be found?
>
> Or, conversely, why do IBM reps not make a point of telling their
> customer base that the 3270 manual is essential reading for anybody
> who edits files?
>
You are making things up. No one said you needed to read the terminal manual
to edit a file. I said you should read the 3270 manual if you want to have
anything approaching an intelligent conversation about the design of xedit and
whether certain design decisions made sense, given the hardware available.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:07:41 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
>> >Whistler will appear in a "personal" version that will cost the same as
>> >Windows 9x/ME.
>>
>> By the time Whistler "Personal version" is released, there won't be any
>> WinDOS pricing.
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2667224,00.html
>>
>> Microsoft is hard at crime, forcing customers left and right to pay NT
>> prices.
>
>Your lack of reading comprehension is simply amazing.
No, it is my lack of gullibility which is causing you problems.
>Try this again. Whistler will cost *THE SAME PRICE* as Windows 9x/ME.
OK, let me try this again: Bullshit, or "who cares?"; take your pick.
>They are discontinuing volume licensing of 9x based Windows, but will offer
>volume pricing for Whistler.
Yes, we knew that. And according to you, this will be WinDOS level
pricing for something called "Whistler Personal Edition". So
apparently, the massive rejection of Microsoft's current business
strategies is having at least some effect, eh? Must be the intense
pressure from the entirely anti-competitive GPL movement, and Linux,
huh? The felony convictions don't help matters, of course.
Christ, it must be such fun to have your job. I'm assuming you have
very close contact with Microsoft; watching them squirm would be just
too amusing, from your vantage point. But I guess it provides that air
of desperation we see in the Microsoft apologists these days; you can't
see the humor in it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:13:26 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 4 Jan 2001 \
> >> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > A> An NT server would reboot automatically if BSOD and resume
> >operation
> >> >> > within minutes.
> >> >> > B> If it doesn't, and you know *nothing* about NT, you turn to
> >> >Google.com
> >> >>
> >> >> Well that's all well and good - but from what I hear, nt
> >> >> gets itself into a state where it cannot boot again without
> >> >> manual intervention.
> >> >
> >> >Where did you hear that? The only reason that would happen is if the
> >drive
> >> >crashed or there was some other hardare failure that prevented
booting.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. NT servers notoriously 'latch' at 100% CPU utilization.
> >> Always a driver's or an application's fault, of course. Must be
because
> >> its such a popular product, right?
> >
> >What are you talking about? "notoriously" latching at 100% CPU at
bootup?
> >I've never seen this, ever.
>
> You've never looked. Are you a 'corporate officer', or are you a system
> administrator? Anyone working with NT boxes generally recognizes the
> behavior. But we all know how lucky you get with Microsoft products....
First of all, how would you know if it was "latched" at 100% CPU during the
reboot? There would be no way to tell.
Second of all, I'm a programming consultant, that also does administration
in some situations and am a corporate officer for 2 startup companies (CTO
to be specific).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: Re: 2.4 finally made official
Date: 5 Jan 2001 23:11:32 GMT
Glitch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: http://www.msnbc.com/news/512189.asp
: It's about time.
No kidding! Talk about shoddy journalism, eh?
Linux 2.4.0 was released yesterday! Could imagine MSNBC being a day late
covering the release of a new version of Windows?
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 5 Jan 2001 23:13:29 GMT
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 03:11:59 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
You've cleverly diverted this into a discussion about the conduct of
the Fl court as opposed to the Dems. The fact remains that it's not
clear that the Dems cases would have been thrown out if presented to
the supreme court (even if they would have certainly lost) hence the
legal action they took was not frivelous and they were within their
rights pursuing the case. (Even if their case is completely without
merit, I still don't see why they shouldn't be able to pursue it and
have the court throw it into the "recycle bin" as long as they only
waste their own money and not taxpayer dollars)
The fact that they lost doesn't mean that they were wrong to push for
favourable interpretations of the law, it simply means that their arguments
didn't stand up to the scrutiny of the duly appointed legal authorities.
When an election comes down to the fine print, it comes as no surprise
that each side has an interpretation of the fine print that maximises
their chance of victory. That's why we have courts -- because someone
must have the authority to give binding interpretations of the fine
print in the case of such a dispute.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:14:24 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
[...]
>> >Whistler will appear in a "personal" version that will cost the same as
>> >Windows 9x/ME.
>>
>> Whilst most of the features have mysteriously disappeared?
>
>Only two features that I know of that are in 9x today will not be in
>Whistler personal. Multiple monitors, and logging into a domain. ALL other
>features that are not present in personal are not in 9x/ME to begin with.
Boy, you are amazing, Erik, and your ability to misdirect an argument.
Which features of *Whistler* will not be in the personal edition? (I
think the lack of multiple monitors is almost laughable, but did you say
that you can't log into a domain?!?)
So this is a pretense, is that what you're saying? A Windows OS that
can't log into a Windows domain is entirely worthless to everyone but
the home market. Oh, I get it; this is for the home market only, and
they finally figured out a way to 'enforce' it. Now the lack of
multiple monitors makes sense; that's been growing in popularity with
the high-end gamers market (can't have them scamming without paying
their appropriate "Microsoft tax" on the value they get from their
computer hardware). So apparently, Microsoft plans to continue doing
exactly what I've been saying, and which Erik has been frantically
denying: Microsoft is planning on charging NT prices for Whistler
desktops, and this Whistler "PE" is just another ruse to force people to
get trapped into it. The corporate customers, Microsoft's cash engine,
sees their licensing costs increase exponentially *AGAIN*.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:19:12 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
> [...]
> >You didn't answer the question.
> >
> >A connection refused message happens when there is no socket to connect
to
> >or the port is blocked. In order for that to happen, the machine has to
be
> >up. If the machine is down, you'll get a timeout. Unfortunately, a
timeout
> >can also mean dropped packets or that your packet ended up going through
a
> >misconfigured router.
>
> You are presuming that the system is functioning correctly. That's a
> dangerous, and false, assumption when dealing with proprietary crapware.
> With NT, you might well get a connection refused message because the
> "server" is down, although the machine is up, because Microsoft doesn't
> see any point or purpose in keeping the two separate, as has been long
> known to be an effective method of thereby limiting the fault domain.
> Likewise, the machine may be 'up', and you'll still get a timeout,
> because you're using a different definition of 'up'. Certainly, it
> could be a network issue, but conveniently blaming the network is
> all-too-often a way to simply abrogate the blame which rightfully
> accrues to Microsoft crapware.
You're not comprehending. My point is that there is a difference between a
timeout and a connection refused.
Indeed, to get a connection refused the machine *HAS* to be up, and the
server down (or port blocked or there is a connection limit in place).
What's your point? That has nothing to do with the OS though. If the web
server process has crashed, the port will still be open and cause a timeout.
The server process has to be stopped completly for it to give a connection
refused (unless the port is blocked or you have put connection limits in
place).
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:15:06 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 05 Jan 2001
> >Johan Kullstam wrote:
> >>
> >> "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > >Choice is good - if customers could choose between cheap and functional
> >> > >winmodems (for example) or more expensive, but more reliable and flexible
> >> > >real modems, that would be fine. But customers are forced (through lack of
> >> > >information and lack of choice) to buy inferior winmodems, with very little
> >> > >real price difference.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Plus the fact that many new users had the modem pre-installed when they
> >> > bought the PC. If you buy a PC with free modem included how do new users
> >> > who are buying their first computer know they are not getting real
> >> > hardware.
> >>
> >> 1) the modem is not free. it's part of the price.
> >>
> >> 2) sometimes you have to take worthless junk as part of the bundle
> >> even knowing that it's a piece of junk..
> >
> >Which is why I *ALWAYS* build my own computer....it's no bargain when
> >you have to replace 1/2 of the hardware to get the system up to
> >your own personal specifications.
>
> Its also why I, since I always buy a pre-built computer, I never accept
> one which has worthless junk bundled in, even if its "free".
it was an amd duron based system with a decent but not great video
card and a usable sound card. the price was good and better than if i
tried buying everything piecemeal. it came with a modem-of-lose which
i replaced but i knew that going in.
it's like when you buy a car and it comes with a stock radio you don't
like. the dealer upgrade to better radio is more than what a car
radio shop would charge. otherwise you like the car and its price.
buy the car and get an aftermarket radio.
bundling is all about forcing some subpar parts as a package because
the primary is attractive. well, if it is attractive enough, then you
take it.
i am primarly angry that the labels on the modem packaging is so
vague as to imho constitute fraud. fraud cannot be tolerated in a
market system. if the customer cannot get themself informed, how can
the market produce good results?
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: 5 Jan 2001 23:18:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> Microsoft has no viable long-term business model other than organized
:> crime, and it isn't really all that good even at that.
:>
:> The markets haven't figured that out yet, but they will.
: wow - so "the markets" composed of billions of people and hundreds of
: thousands of top professional lawyers and investors and analyists have
: simply not "figured that out yet" - they just missed it. Whoops, must be
: those really fancy MS marketing tricks eh? Maybe some MS MiB?
It is well accepted in the investment business that anyone who is
knowledgeable about a particular small segment of an industry will
tend to outperform the market as a whole with respect to that industry
segment.
: Are you actually brain dead enough to imagine that YOU are the psychic
: genius that can interpret the MS business model in a way that 1000s of years
: of cumulative business knowledge the pro's have can't?
Actually, anyone with even a small portion of their brain, and a
little bit of correct factual information, would be able to figure out
the same thing on their own.
: You are some braniac Joseph!
Not really.
As ashamed as I am to admit it, I used to advocate Micro$hit. Not
because I'm a criminal, but because I was uninformed.
: Can you focus your mental prowess on some linux companies? Lesse,
: try to sell a product that can be had for free hmmmm... and if someone does
: buy a copy they pay very very little and probably then share it with 10
: others for free. Oh yes, and their "viable long-term business model" is
: what? Sell it at a loss and make it up in volume?? (and they can't even do
: the volume part).
I didn't say the Linux companies have a business model that's been
proven to be viable. I only said that Microsoft does not.
For the record, I believe that Linux will have the effect of
empowering consumers of technology, not necessarily developers.
: I guess I didn't know that in America successful capitalism was declared
: organized crime. Or is that Joseph stalin speaking?
I'm all for successful "capitalism." Just not organized crime.
Most grown-ups do know the difference between the two.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:22:44 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> First of all, how would you know if it was "latched" at 100% CPU during
> the
> reboot? There would be no way to tell.
>
> Second of all, I'm a programming consultant, that also does administration
> in some situations and am a corporate officer for 2 startup companies (CTO
> to be specific).
>
Has it never occured to you that nowhere was any statement that said this
were happening during reboot?
The infamous 100% utilization VERY effectively prohibits ANY further action
of that NT-machine. You simply have to press reboot or that big red one.
Your very fine settings to reboot on BSOD do not halp here.
And it still is quite easy to get a NT into that state. I have seen it
happen 3 times in the last 3 month (NOT on the same machine, 3 different
ones). NT is shit, even if you deny it. Just stop telling lies about how
easy, stable (take your pick) it is.
It's simply not true.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 23:31:48 -0000
>
>120V will usually only give you a nasty shock, unless you stick the
>leads through dead, dry skin to get to the very electrically conductive
>electrolytes that permeate your entire body.
Also, some 120v (or 110v) systems use a center-tapped transformer at
the substation with the earth connected to the center tap and live/neutral
are the outer taps so touching either of them only gives a half-mains shock
and you are unlikely to get electrocuted from only 60v (it can happen
though).
I wonder why no 240 countries do this to give only a 120v maximum shock
as this would reduce electricity related deaths by a significant amount.
It does make it impossible to use equipment with cases connected to
neutral though (as there are effectively 2 lives).
>
>did you ever watch "The Young Ones" episode in which they're
>up late enough one night that the witness the BBC channel
>going off the air for the night....and they're just sitting
>their watching "the dot" in the center of the screen.
>
I wonder how many people noticed the subliminal pictures in that show which
are only viewable properly by pausing a video of the program.
>Linus's main reason for coming up with a successor for Minix was
>because the 80286 didn't have a supervisor (kernel) mode like
>the VAX-11 and 80386.
>
There used to be a 286 version of linux back in the 1.x.x days - may
still be on the net somewhere. No 8086 version though unlike minix
which can still be run on 8086 even in latest version (www.minix.org)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
