Linux-Advocacy Digest #371, Volume #31 Wed, 10 Jan 01 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: KDE Hell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
restrictions on "tux"? (Tijmen Stam)
Re: Linux misseery cont. (.)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (Mark Addinall)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (.)
Re: Linux 2.4.0 rocks for me, and you? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: KDE Hell (.)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: KDE Hell (.)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux misseery cont. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Adam Warner")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:01:59 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 09 Jan 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> Monopolizing is illegal, as is attempting to monopolize, so obviously
> >> there are no monopolies that are legal. Coincidentally enough, there
> >> are other terms for what is often, inaccurately, called a monopoly;
> >> public utility and regulated market being the two most common.
> >
> >Those are other terms used when the government decides to protect a
> >monopoly by law. It's also the only way monopolies exist for long
> >periods of time in the market - naturally occurring monopolies are
> >shortlived.
>
> That paragraph is nothing more than a repeated mis-use of the term
> 'monopoly' to begin with. The government never protects any company
> which is in unreasonable restraint of trade, nor provides the power to
> control prices or exclude competition (in those cases where a free
> market is not considered desirable, when resources are limited or the
> necessity of the consumer makes fair pricing impossible, the government
You obviously haven't met
-- The US Postal Service (restricts the rights of other couriers)
-- Local Utilities (prevents me from finding my own supplier)
-- Local RBOCS (prevents me from finding my own local provider)
-- Local Cable providers (prevents me from finding my own supplier)
These are all government created monopolies. They are wildly
inefficient and couldn't stand on their own easily if given competition.
The postal service is particularly nasty - a company I worked for in the
early 90's was sued by the postal service for using FedEx for all
intra-office communication. They claimed that most of the letters
weren't 'critical', and thus we weren't justified in avoiding the postal
service.
That all by itself is more harm than Microsoft has ever caused - the
postal service does this routinely.
> has itself controlled prices or excluded competition; the producer does
> not enjoy monopoly power.) Natural barriers to entry do not provide any
> time period whatsoever in which unreasonable restraint of trade, be it
> by engrossing, forestalling, regrating, or any other means, is not
> illegal, nor do the rules of the free market allow any time period in
> which a single producer or vendor has a large share of the commercial
> trade to be an environment in which one can enjoy monopoly power without
> illegally restraining trade.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
James A. Robertson
Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:02:27 GMT
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:54:03 GMT, BradyBear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I actually like CDE more than KDE as a desktop. When I run a desktop
>under Linux. Usually, I just start X and type MWM. Very stable and
>uncluttered. And you can still run Kwhatever if you want to. I've just
I like CDE under AIX as well.
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Tijmen Stam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: restrictions on "tux"?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:17:41 +0100
Hi
We're planning on a non-commercial linux search engine named
wherestux.org, but I wanted to know if there are any restrictions on the
word "tux" in the name wherestux.org (so not about the penguin drawn by
larry ewing...)
Tijmen
--
>From Tijmen Stam - "I believe in Linux" - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
POVray page http://members.tripod.lycos.nl/somepage/ Updated Dec 10,2000
count linux @ counter.li.org reg#178552, Machine#78930 & #78931
Everyone calling himself a linux master should have completely read the Bash
man page and all kernel documentation, as a test to prove himself and to free
some bandwith on comp.os.linux.* ( Honestly, I haven't done this all yet )-:
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux misseery cont.
Date: 10 Jan 2001 21:24:39 GMT
LINUX ANONYMOUSE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It amases me every time that someone tends to object to linux that
> everyone insults him. I personally use slackware linux and sometimes
> find it very annoying to configure as well. As for the GUI I totally
> agree..... AKA IT SUCKS. I have yet to find a GUI that is easy to
> configure linux, click and point easy, and very user friendly.
Then dont use linux. If you want pointy-clicky, stick with windows.
See ya.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Mark Addinall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:43:08 +0930
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Steve Mading wrote:
> >
> > At this point, I'd say there isn't a damn thing I can do with it, even
> > though clearly *something* is still running, since the mouse pointer does
> > move on the screen.
> >
> > That's a powerswitch-reboot situation. There's nothing else to do.
> >
> > In that case it doesn't matter if the underlying OS is crashed
> > or not, I can't talk to it in any way shape or form.
> >
> > This happens to me about once a month on Linux. (It happens more often
> > on Windows, but it *does* happen on Linux too). I'd say that counts
> > as being "frozen".)
> >
> > It always happens when running Netscape, and always when its stuck
> > while bringing up a menubar pull-down menu. I think X is grabbing
> > more input types than it needs to and then not releasing it.
>
> Better check your memory chips.
Dunno. Looks like software. I've had this happen to me once.
Although since using Linux since 1.1.13 I'm not complaining.
What I do find is netscape chews into swap over an extended
period of time, and thrashes the disk. Moreso when so
is loaded. Fighting for resource?
Mark Addinall
>
> Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 10 Jan 2001 21:27:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93i5au$r0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> > > Actually the so-called "32-CPU" windows system is just four 8 way
>> >> > > systems.
>> >> >
>> >> > Really? Is this including the NEC, Unisys and several other vendor's
>> > 32-CPU
>> >> > and 64-CPU boxes? One single box with 32-CPUs is actually just four
>> > 8-way
>> >> > CPUs? That's not what their sites say, so they must be falsely
>> > advertising,
>> >> > right?
>> >>
>> >> All the so called "32-way" windows systems I have seen,
>> >> turn out to be, on closer inspection, clusters of 4 8 way PCs.
>> >>
>> >> If you know of a true 32-way windows pc, do be a good
>> >> sport and provide a URL, OK?
>> >>
>>
>> > do your own closer inspections - visit unisys...
>>
>> > Actually, you claim the 32 cpu systems you've seen are just 4 8 way
> PCs -
>> > so, tell us, which 32 cpu systems have you seen? be a good sport and
> provide
>> > a URL OK?
>>
>> > I've personally seen a single server with 32 cpu's in it - tell me how I
>> > could have mistaken it for 4 seperate PCs?
>>
>> You easily mistook it because youre retarded.
>>
>> You apparantly have never seen an enterprise system with multiple
> mainboards
>> to support that many CPUs. Nearly all of them utilize this architecture;
>> and ALL x86 ones do.
>>
> Dude, quite being so retarded. If I open up a single server chassis and
> there are 4 CPU boards with 8 CPUs each plugged into a single backplane, I'm
> calling that a 32 CPU PC. Period. That's what I say and that's what it is.
> He said "clusters of 4 8 way PCs" as in 4 PCs, 8 way each, clustered.
You have no idea how these machines work, then.
Besides that, what chad was describing was entirely parallel 32 proc per board
machines. These simply do not exist beyond the mainframe world, period, and
they absolutely, positively do not exist at ALL in the x86 world, because
X86 ARCHITECTURE DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS FORM OF HSMP, PERIOD.
Chad is an idiot.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.0 rocks for me, and you?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:25:27 -0000
>Maybe my USB bits and pieces will all work. I'll have to see when Mandrake
>goes to 2.4
>
Mandrake 7.2 install CD has test version of kernel-2.4 - I cannot remember
the
name of the rpm files, it is something like hack-kernel.something.rpm
This should be close enough to release version to test your hardware on.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 10 Jan 2001 21:28:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
> Ebert) wrote:
>>Linux is unfeasible at work?
>>
>>Either you lived with your head up your ass your entire life or you
>>need to put your cheeks on a diet.
> Call up 10 Fortune 100 companies and ask them what their standard
> desktop and mobile platform is and report back to us.
Call up 10 fortune 100 companies and ask whoever answers the phone
if they know where Guam is.
I dont expect you to get the point, claire, so dont even attempt to
wrap your pygmie brain around it. It was meant for everyone else.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 21:30:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SMP under Linux levels off after four processors, similar to FreeBSD.
> Real SMP support is found under Commercial UNIX's,
Agreed, and as a reminder, I am not saying in anyway that linux is better
than freebsd, or the other way around.
> and Windows NT.
AAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,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?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:31:55 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:93fnt6$6lq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :>
> :> Compression on top of Compression usually doesn't make the file
> :> smaller, in fact the overhead of the compression scheme makes it
> :> even bigger. This assumes the first compression was any good. If
> :> the second compression still finds enough redundancies and patterns
> :> to make more compression, then that is evidence that the first
> :> compression was pretty poor. This is why I dislike automatic
> :> compression at a low level. For example, compressing TCP/IP data
> :> over a phone modem is silly if the modem itself already uses
> :> compression.
> :>
> :> Running something like PKzip on a file the OS already compressed
> :> for you is going to make it take more space, not less.
>
> : Well, actually, the way NT compress a file isn't quite the way PKzip does.
>
> : NT divide the file to 2 clusters units.
> : And compress each unit individually, if the last bit isn't exactly large
> : enough for two clusters, it won't be compressed.
>
> : This scheme is a compromise between access speed and compression, if PKzip
> : wants to zip this file, it will access the raw file, not the compressed
> : data.
> : It will compress it, and then return compressed data to another file,
> : assuming that the other file is also FS-level-compressed, then NT will do
> : the above procedure while it try to compress it.
> : I'm not sure what the result would be space-wise.
>
> Unless the NT compression is pretty bad, using PKzip wouldn't improve
> things much, but it could very easily make the file size *bigger* than
> the unzipped version, as that is common when you try to compress
> data that doesn't have any discernable patern. (This is what compression
> does - remove the redundancies and try to express patterns in a way that
> cannot be reduced any further. Once that's been done, there should be
> very few redundancies and patterns for a second compression program to
> make use of.)
>
> So, you are right that PKzip would be compressing the raw, uncompressed
> file stream, but then if this file stream, after PKzipping, got stored
> by NT's compression scheme, NT would be compressing already compressed
> data, and it would be doing so only by 1 cluster at a time from your
> description, so its chances of finding patterns that PKzip missed is
> pretty low (PKzip looks for patterns across the whole file, so it
> can find more global as well as local patterns). So NT would end up
> exploding out data that would have been better left alone as-is.
> Now, this assumes that NT doesn't have some sort of ability to detect
> when the compressed version is larger than the original. If it has
> that smarts built in, it might be able to realize it should store the
Don't count on it....
> raw version of the cluster in that case.
>
> --
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
> Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 21:32:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2001 08:39:31 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>Orgy? Functionless?
> I can drag a menu item tight off the start menu or any other menu
> under Windows and put it anywhere.
> How do I do that under Enlightenment?
You run GTK, and it takes care of it for you. BTW, both GTK and windows
got this idea from NeXTStep, which was doing it happily about 10 years ago.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:34:36 -0500
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote:
>
> In <93e3lq$hta$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/08/2001
> at 11:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) said:
>
> >If the lack of prefix macros and a couple of SET options is the main
> >difference between Xedit and Kedit then I think that would pretty
> >much prove my point. That's not much of a difference!
>
> The fact that you don't use an XEDIT feature doesn't mean that it's
> not part of XEDIT. If it doesn't run XEDIT macros then it's not an
> XEDIT clone, regardless of whatever else it does.
>
> Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play. That was the
> difference that prevented me from copying a whole bunch of useful
> macros from CMS, and it was the difference that kept me from buying
> the product for personal use.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
> Atid/2
> Team OS/2
> Team PL/I
>
Real Programmers don't write in PL/I....because ANYBODY can be obscure in PL/I.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux misseery cont.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:38:05 +0000
> Then dont use linux. If you want pointy-clicky, stick with windows.
>
> See ya.
>
If it's pointy-clicky you're after, get a Mac!
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:28:07 +1200
Hi Conrad,
> > Is that why Linux is the reigning specweb champ?
> > It seems the windoze zealots all want to live in the
> > past, and keep reassuring themselves with tales
> > of the old discredited mindcraft benchmarks.
>
> mind you, that's without a journaling file system which slows linux down
to
> lower than ntfs speed.
>
> AND, mind you again, it's a non-production benchmark-busting-limited
> funcionality kernel mode httpd. It was tuned to beat benchmarks, no one is
> using it in production (show me the netcraft URL of someone who is?) As
> opposed to the off the shelf IIS platform which came within 2.7% of the
> "champ"'s performance. If you think 2.7% is a whooping win - I guess we
know
> you are satisified with small things.
LOL. It was using a beta 2.4 kernel. And Microsoft knows its arse has been
whiped according to this ZDNet article:
http://cma.zdnet.com/texis/cma/cma/+XG9egzV0xzmwwwxqFqr+__6W96mzmwwwwnzmwwww
pFqrp1xmwBnLFqnhw5B/display.html
---Begin Quote---
There's some sincere flattery of Linux going on at Microsoft these days. As
we wrote in these pages in August, a prototype version of Tux, Red Hat's
kernel-level Web server and cache, blew away all other contenders in
SPECweb99 Web benchmark tests, including Microsoft's IIS (Internet
Information Server) Web server, which ran at about 40 percent of Tux's
speed-a huge difference.
Microsoft took those results to heart. I was in Redmond last month for
briefings and learned about the new architecture planned for IIS 6.0, the
Web server that will ship in Whistler, the follow-on operating system to
Windows 2000.
Lo and behold, IIS 6.0 has been totally rede signed as a kernel-level Web
server and cache. When I asked IIS 6.0 Program Manager Bill Staples if these
changes were in response to the SPECweb results, he said Microsoft was aware
of the Linux numbers and was hoping to do better in the future. Given the
effort that must be required to implement this major rearchitecture of IIS
6.0, that's got to be the understatement of the quarter.
Red Hat started shipping Tux earlier this quarter with a prerelease version
of the Linux 2.4 kernel, which Tux requires. Red Hat is supporting this
early build of the kernel for use with Tux.-Timothy Dyck
---End Quote---
You are going to have to PAY FOR A WHOLE NEW OPERATING SYSTEM (that is in
beta) to even be able to approach Linux's new performance. Respond to that!
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:38:49 +1200
Hi Conrad,
> > Anyone want to guess why Microsoft's Linux Myths:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
> >
> > Have not been updated since 1 November 1999?
> >
> because it served it's purpose then and linux hasn't overcome the problems
> outlined in that document in over a year...
Here's some useful quotes:
"Linux performance and scalability is architecturally limited in the 2.2
Kernel."
Wouldn't want to mention the 2.4 kernel would we?
"The Linux community continues to promise major SMP and performance
improvements. They have been promising these since the development of the
2.0 Kernel in 1996."
"Linux lacks a commercial quality Journaling File System."
"There are no commercially proven clustering technologies to provide High
Availability for Linux."
"Linux is a higher risk option than Windows NT."
"Linux Security Model Is Weak"
Many of the comments border upon outright lies when read in the light of
Linux today. Most of the rest are FUD and were FUD even back then.
Maybe Microsoft doesn't have the resources to update an article that is over
a year old and clearly misrepresentative of Linux today.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:38:39 -0500
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote:
>
> In <93frfc$qeo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/09/2001
> at 08:14 PM, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >I really hate defending Aaron, because he's just as annoying as
> >Tholen, but both the 3270 AND the XEDIT software were designed by
> >IBM, and therefore in an argument about whether or not IBM's software
> >standards are bad, it doesn't matter which is responsible for quirky
> >behaviour
>
> The reaon that it matters is that aaron was defending IBM's hardware.
IBM makes good, solid, robust hardware. The physical specs of
IBM's hardware is fantastic. But when it comes to programming
and communications protocols...that's their downfall.
That said...I buy IBM SCSI disks because I know that, physically, the
drives will be well made, and perform to spec....and since since
the protocol (SCSI-U2W or SCSI-3) is beyond IBM's control, I don't
have to worry about IBM's weird software protocols...
>
> >(You might not
> >think of a hardwired, non-CPU style of terminal as 'software', but
> >that's not what's under the discussion here
>
> That is exactly what is under discussion here.
IBM makes robust, long-lasting, rarely-failes-before-obsolete hardware.
Does that clarify my position?
>
> >and that protocol, designed on paper,
> >as a series of bytes to send back and forth that have symbolic
> >meaning, counts as a software standard in my book
>
> So Baudot is a software standard? I doubt that you'd have gotten any
> telegraph operators to agree.
>
> >The fact that the 3270 *protocol standard* was designed to be
> >incapable of communicating spaces actually entered by the user when
> >those spaces appear at the end of a line of text is a bad *software*
> >standard.
>
> First, it is not a software standazrd, as noted above. Second, it is
> not "incapable of communicating spaces actually entered by the user
> when those spaces appear at the end of a line of text"; the problem is
> more subtle. Normally you are only aware of the problem when adding
> characters in the middle of the line; it takes a truly dunderheaded
> user to ever see it at the end of a line. Specifically, there is no
> Earthly reason to go into insert mode when you are adding data at the
> end of a line, and the issue only exists in insert mode.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> -----------------------------------------------------------
--
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
******************************
