Linux-Advocacy Digest #68, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Feb 01 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:04:53 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 8 Feb 2001 20:48:44 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 7 Feb 2001 22:07:19 GMT;
>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: [...]
>:>:>I was not considering the 'base' hardware like the CPU and motherboard.
>:>:>I was thinking of cards plugged into the expansion bus, produced by
>:>:>companies much smaller than Intel. Things like sound cards, video
>:>:>cards, and so on. Granted, I didn't make this clear.
>:>
>:>: No, it was clear, and I was well aware that you were considering
>:>: peripherals. Does that mean you don't see the relevance of my example,
>:>: or was I not clear enough myself?
>:>
>:>The example isn't relevant because Intel is not very representative
>:>of the problem. The problem comes into play only when you consider
>:>the large number of very small companies each making their own
>:>seperate, incompable peripherals.
>
>: How on earth is a small company going to survive making incompatible
>: peripherals? No, the example was quite relevant, though you may be
>: right that it is not indicative of the current market in peripherals.
>: What makes it relevant is the same argument you make could have been
>: made about motherboards two years ago.
>
>No it couldn't have. The motherboard has no software drivers. It's
>a hardware interface to connect different hardware vendors' stuff
>togeter - connect this company's CPU to that company's memory, and that
>other company's PCI card, etc. Opensource is irrelevant because there
>are no software remifications. All the compatability issues are
>hardware-to-hardware.
Whether or not a particular bit of technology is available in the market
is all that matters, not whether its hardware or software or what. The
"software driver" for the motherboard is the operating system, as I
said, at least metaphorically. Stop quibbling. Your gripe was that
"something has to be done to make the drivers start getting developed
*before* the hardware is on the shelves. I'm not sure how to do that
without just trusting the vendors to do it themselves." I was just
trying to point out the inconsistencies in your reasoning. Nothing "has
to be done"; free markets automatically take care of things like this.
It may be vendors doing it, college kids doing it, or someone you pay to
do it, or most probably some putatively efficient combination of any and
all methods which ensures that the consumer just goes to the store and
buys the stuff.
Two years ago, any Microsoft sock-puppet might have claimed that the
'problem' with Linux is that it couldn't possibly support new hardware
(motherboards, CPUs, 64-bit chips, et. al,) before the hardware was
released like Microsoft could, because Intel would give them access and
assistance. History has shown that this isn't what's happened.
Likewise, once there is a consumer market for Linux which is free from
monopolization, drivers, whether proprietary or open source, will not be
much of an issue.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:04:54 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 8 Feb 2001 23:54:17 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>
>:> No it couldn't have. The motherboard has no software drivers. It's
>:> a hardware interface to connect different hardware vendors' stuff
>:> togeter - connect this company's CPU to that company's memory, and that
>:> other company's PCI card, etc. Opensource is irrelevant because there
>:> are no software remifications. All the compatability issues are
>:> hardware-to-hardware.
>:>
>: Boy are you wrong (if you use Win9X, that is).
>
>I don't.
>
>: Just take a functioning install and transplant a new MoBo.
>: You will be amazed at the number of "new devices" found.
>
>: This all is plain shit, naturally. Really no need to do it that way.
>: But they did (now THAT does surprise us, really).
>
>That's an error in the way Windows detects hardware, that's all.
>It gets tricked into thinking you have new cards when you
>change the thing they are plugged into (the motherboard).
Actually, I think its a flaw in the way Windows is designed. If you
change the thing they plug into, Windows has to reload all the cards
from scratch.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:04:56 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 9 Feb 2001 01:37:38 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:> : This all is plain shit, naturally. Really no need to do it that way.
>:> : But they did (now THAT does surprise us, really).
>:>
>:> That's an error in the way Windows detects hardware, that's all.
>:> It gets tricked into thinking you have new cards when you
>:> change the thing they are plugged into (the motherboard).
>
>: Usually it re-detects a lot of system devices (system clock, PCI bus,
>: PIC, AGP controller, etc etc) due to the fact that they have actually
>: changed. It doesn't necessarily do this part very WELL... (ALWAYS
>: reinstall 9x after changing the MB!)
>
>: I guess the reason from MS would be that the new devices need new virtual
>: device drivers...
>
>But the thing is, the software interface to those things is IDENTICAL
>to what it was on the old motherboard. Having to 're-detect' them
>is just a stupid Micorosoftism. I have done the motherboard and
>hard drive transplant thing, and Kudzu (the redhat device detector)
>noticed no new hardware, and everything ran fine with no changes to
>the settings at all.
I think the official MCSP response is that it is because Windows
"optimizes" for all this stuff, and Linux doesn't. I'm sure you can
imagine the colorful ways your typical sock puppet would harangue Linux
for being limited or antiquated or something.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:04:58 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 09 Feb 2001 03:55:04
>"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:ONAg6.5171$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <95ua5o$ip490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Fermin Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Hi Peter
>> >
>> >"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
>> >> from that MS-shit.
>> >
>> >Which parts of MS's TCP/IP implementation don't you like? On which Windows
>> >versions? Please be more specific.
>>
>> According to Unix Administration Handbook, 3rd ed.:
>>
>> "Linux pays attention to the type-of-service (TOS) bits in IP packets
>> and gives faster service to packets that are labeled as interactive (low
>> latency). Jammin'! Unfortunately, brain damage on the part of
>> Microsoft necessitates that you turn off this perfectly reasonable
>> behavior."
>
>Are they referring to QoS and just aren't smart enough to spell it right?
No, Chad, they are referring to TOS, and you aren't smart enough to know
the difference.
>IIRC, Microsoft Windows 2000 is the first and only OS to fully support
>QoS throughout. In fact, Cisco, a leader in IP innovation, worked with
>Microsoft to get their QoS right in their routers and such.
I didn't know Microsoft made routers.
>How's Linux's QoS implementation coming along?
Who cares? QoS is worthless. For reasons made obvious by Microsoft's
handling of TOS.
>> "All packets originating on Windows 95, 98, NT, and 2000 are labeled as
>> being interactive, no matter what their purpose.... If your Linux
>> gateway serves a mixed network of UNIX and Windows systems, the Windows
>> packets will consistently get preferential treatment. The performance
>> hit for UNIX can be quite noticeable."
>>
>> In other words, MS's TCP/IP just hogs the network unconditionally with
>> highest priority, forcing others to do the same if they want any
>> throughput, and making sensible prioritizing of network traffic flow
>> impossible.
>
>So this is the worst you could come up with?
No, its the FIRST thing he came up with. The fallacy is the original
sock-puppets unstated supposition that there weren't such a huge array
of flaws with Microsoft's TCP/IP that at least one wouldn't pop out so
clearly that it would send you into one of your typical spinning fits.
Nobody with any knowledge or experience would bother even trying to
characterize, let alone catalog, all the things about Microsoft's TCP/IP
implementation which suck. Its known throughout the industry as the
clear example of how to make things suck without making them completely
unusable. Obviously this is where Microsoft's true talent lies, as it
is a recurring theme throughout their products.
[...]
>It's also interesting to note that in the "Unix Administrator's Handbook"
>they take the time to bash Microsoft.
Yes, quite interesting. One might almost think it were common knowledge
that Microsoft's products are crap.
>Why is it that whenever I read technical documentation by Microsoft or
>about a Microsoft product, I never see any bashing of alternative
>products, in fact, they usually have a section in the back of the
>book detailing many of the possible alternative (including, occasionally,
>Linux-based alternatives).
You don't have enough brains to see it, that's why. All their bashing
is the kind of FUD that you are too stupid to see through. Basically,
the same stuff they feed you at your sock-puppet briefings.
>However, when I read Linux documentation or documentation on Linux
>(even from Red Hat on occasion) I see pejorative comments about Microsoft,
>even using the "M$" moniker in professional publications.
Well, the fact that Microsoft monopolizes the industry does make it more
probable that Linux documentation will discuss Microsoft than the other
way around. But don't strain your brain, Chad. Just pretend they are
jealous of Bill's money.
>Just shows you the level of maturity between the two camps-- or perhaps
>the fear level. MS has no reason to attack, but it seems the Linux
>camp is always in rabid dog mode, spending more time attacking MS
>for their screwups and not fixing their own bugs.
What a sock puppet.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:04:59 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 09 Feb 2001 03:49:47
GMT;
>
>"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > 2 + 2 wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The article compares OS/2 with the Win9x/Me code base in terms of
>> > > > innovation.
>> > > >
>> > > > Microsoft's real innovation with its OS products was with Windows
>> > > > NT/2000. And it competes with Linux and Unix.
>> > > >
>> > > > And OS/2 is no match for Linux in particular.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Well, in my experience, that depends:
>> > > I've NEVER seen anything which comes even close to the
>> > > speed of an OS/2 server if you use SMB protocol. OS/2 runs
>> > > rings around Win(everyVersion) and Samba.
>> >
>> > Do you have any benchmarks to evidence this?
>> >
>>
>> Do you really think I will dig up some magazine 3 years old
>> which you, Chad Myers, asshole and lying MS-shill, would
>> dismiss then as not MS-centric enough?
>
>Are you really attempting to say that C't really doesn't Microsoft
>bash?
>
>Please spare on the name-calling and profanity.
>
>Apparently you know you are wrong and therefore you feel the need
>to lash out in a vein attempt to cloak your ignorance.
>
>Sorry, nice try. Thanks for playing.
>
>*PL0NK*
>
>-Chad
>
Chad, you are incredible. As in "an incredible, pathetically dishonest,
piece of shit."
PLEASE do the world a favor and stop wasting your time and everyone
else's by posting your bullshit to these groups. It would be nice to be
able to engage in conversation with others without having you acting
like a fifth grader who won't shut up.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:05:03 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 7 Feb 2001
21:58:14 -0600;
>"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:95slo2$d6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <Tshg6.6910$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > > None of which indicates if Funkenbusch knows what the fuck .NET
>> really
>> > is.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I want *HIM* to explain it.
>> > > >
>> > > > What you want is irrelevant. I've said all i'm going to say. I'm
>> not
>> > going
>> > > > to write a book just because *YOU* want me to. The subject is way
>> too
>> > > > comprehensive for a simple usenet post.
>> > >
>> > > Translation: Funkenbusch has absolutely NO fucking clue what .NET is
>> > > (of course, neither does anybody else, but that's another matter.)
>> >
>> > Translation: I'll demand something so outrageous that he won't
>> answer, then
>> > I can call him names and pretend that I am superior.
>>
>> What is so outrageous about asking what .NET is thay you wont answer?
>
>I did answer. The answer wasn't good enough for Aaron, and he refuses to
>acknowledge it. He wants a book rather than a paragraph and I'm not going
>to do that. I've already written a paragraph description.
No, you didn't. You described a single component. The fact is, he
wants a paragraph, not a book, and you simply can't give it to him. And
it isn't simply because they haven't given you one at the sock-puppet
briefings; its that there is none. There is no categorizing or
cataloging what .NET is, there is no comprehensive nor concise
description or definition. It is whatever Microsoft wants to try to use
to lock people into paying them over and over again for whatever
Microsoft can manage to monopolize.
It is a Java rip-off, repackaged to be anti-competitive. If you could
manage to say it, I'm sure Aaron would get off your case.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:05:06 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 08 Feb
2001 00:33:43 -0000;
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 07:14:18 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 05 Feb
>>>On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 02:38:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 3 Feb 2001
>>>>>On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 07:12:34 GMT,
>>>>> John Travis, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>> brought forth the following words...:
>>>>>
>>>>>>And Charlie Ebert spoke unto the masses...
>>>>>>:When it comes to Koresh, don't we have better things to do
>>>>>>:with our Federal money and time than chace religious kooks?
>>>>>>:Religious kooks with guns or not, who cares....
>>>>>>:
>>>>>>:Did they break any law? I still never heard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, several fire arms laws, hence the ATF.
>>>>>
>>>>>funnily enough, there were no convictions of firearms violations.
>>>>
>>>>Well, considering the suspects burned themselves to death before they
>>>>could be charged, I don't find it funny at all.
>>>
>>> There were sufficient survivors for a trial.
>>
>>A trial for what? Getting stupid with a religious nut who tried to kill
>>them? Koresh was the one who was being charged. He is dead.
>
> Conspiracy would be the obvious thing.
Why would you make up charges without evidence? Do you think this is
the way the government does things?
> If Koresch was genuinely the only one that the ATF wanted to
> hunt down, then they could have done so at their liesure.
> There was no need for them to show the world how macho they are.
I will again point out that your desire to paint the incident as a
"macho" thing, rather than a police matter, undermines your position.
No, the police don't say "OK, we'll come back later."
> However, that would still have been the most sane course of
> action strategically even if they did want to take out the
> entire sect. The ATF was simply showboating.
You are far more cavalier about the incident than I am.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:05:07 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 08 Feb
2001 00:41:22 -0000;
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 07:14:20 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 05 Feb
>>2001 19:28:47 -0000;
>>>On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 07:12:34 GMT, John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>And Charlie Ebert spoke unto the masses...
>>>>:When it comes to Koresh, don't we have better things to do
>>>>:with our Federal money and time than chace religious kooks?
>>>>:Religious kooks with guns or not, who cares....
>>>>:
>>>>:Did they break any law? I still never heard.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, several fire arms laws, hence the ATF.
>>>
>>> Koresh was a licenced machine gun dealer.
>>>
>>> So that might be rather disputable.
>>>
>>> Also, the mere presence law enforcment personnel does
>>> not demonstrate guilt.
>>>
>>>[deletia]
>>>
>>> The bulk of their 'stockpile' was weapons that are available
>>> in models that are quite legal for civilians to purchase and
>>> own without any special licencing.
>>
>>Then why didn't he simply surrender peacefully and get a lawyer?
>>
>>WHY DID HE MURDER ALL THOSE CHILDREN?
>
> Save your rhetoric. You're not talking to a sheep here.
>
> It is the JOB of law enforcement to maintain control and take
> the necessary steps to prevent the loss of life. This is what
> they are TRAINED for.
>
> To lay all of this on someone with notions of being some sort
> of prophet is assinine.
Why? He's the one who murdered all those children.
> Confrontation simply wasn't necessary. 'punking' the 'kidnapper'
> in this instance was not required. The government simply couldn't
> stand to look a little foolish.
>
> So they traded some innocent lives to look nice and macho.
And it doesn't bother you that your argument is unfalsifiable but
unsupported, does it? You're still going to insist its correct.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:05:09 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 08 Feb
2001 00:37:05 -0000;
>On 7 Feb 2001 07:36:56 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 05 Feb
>>:>On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:00 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: [...]
>>:>>> IT'S THEIR JOB TO BE IN CONTROL.
>>:>>
>>:>>They were. From all I've seen, its most likely the religious nuts
>>:>>torched their own compound.
>>:>
>>:> CS cannisters that are a fire hazzard certainly don't hurt
>>:> either.
>>:>
>>:> If it weren't a government agency engaging in that sort of
>>:> behaivor, the perpetrators would have been held liable for
>>:> the fire damages.
>>
>>: Oh, for god's sake. Because something, ANYTHING, the ATF had was
>>: flammable, the fact that the Branch Davidians torched their own compound
>>: is somehow a "get out of jail free" card?
>>
>>: No, I think it more likely that if you didn't have that polemic, there'd
>>: be some other reason to insist it was the government that acted
>>: improperly, regardless of who might have acted unwisely.
>>
>>Has it occurred to any of the people in this argument that maybe,
>>just maybe, it's possible that *both* the Davidians and the ATF
>
> In terms of civil liability, if the ATF were civilians
> they would have been held jointly and severally liable.
> IOW, the vagueness of the situation would lead to BOTH
> parties being considered at fault.
There are no terms of civil liability, Jedi. It isn't any kind of a
cop-out to point out the ATF aren't civilians. It is a reminder that
civilians aren't allowed to do what the ATF did to begin with, so this
hyperbole of yours has no bearing on whether the ATF were right or wrong
in what they did.
[...]
> OTOH, you hope that law enforcement personel with fully
> automatic weapons would exercise a little bit more sense
> than they tend to do.
Yes, this statement I would whole-heartedly agree with. But at least
they show more sense than children-murdering religious zealots.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
