Linux-Advocacy Digest #84, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Feb 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Giuliano Colla)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Giuliano Colla)
Plug 'n' Prey (was Re: NTFS Limitations) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (John Hasler)
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push. ("Osugi")
Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner research
for your reading pleasure) ("Adam Warner")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner research
for your reading pleasure)
La-Z-Boy and the Decline of Western Civilisation ("Adam Warner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:56:22 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > 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).
> > 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).
>
> Lets see you do that with Linux.
>
> What about all the different types of clocks on various mother boards?
> Chipsets? Even RAM types and all the various controllers, etc. Some of
> them, even though written to spec, still speak slightly different.
> I know this is the case because when Linux boots up you can see it
> trying to detect which version of this you have, and which manufacturer
> of that you have, etc. Why is it any different when Windows does it
> than when Linux does it?
>
The difference is that Windows does it badly.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:08:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Unfortunately it's even worst than that. They reload all the cards, but
not from scratch. They leave behind a lot of previous things which
interfere with the new ones and make the system sluggish if you're
lucky, unbearably unstable most of the times, unable to start for the
rest.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Plug 'n' Prey (was Re: NTFS Limitations)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:15:31 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Unfortunately it's even worst than that. They reload all the cards, but
> not from scratch. They leave behind a lot of previous things which
> interfere with the new ones and make the system sluggish if you're
> lucky, unbearably unstable most of the times, unable to start for the
> rest.
Some time ago, I had slicked my Windows 2000 installation, because it
had some serious problems. I reinstalled it clean, and partially
reinstalled some stuff.
Today, I finally booted into it, after a long hiatus, to see about
what settings it thought were used by this old Adaptec AVA-1502AE
crap SCSI card that came with my Microtek scanner (ages ago).
To my surprise, although I was able to manually install my scanner
before, I couldn't see any sign of it in the IRQ/IO list this time.
I'd been wondering about kudzu not seeing it, but apparently Windows
2000 won't see it, either. But why did it see the occupied IRQ before?
Did the original Win NT setup (over which I [mistakenly, even though
following the advice of the installation program] had "upgraded" to
Win 2K) leave a file somewhere that Win2K could use?
Truly, it's a little mystery to me. I was surprised.
Chris
--
This Windows OS is ghak! I need dual Pentium
processors to do battle with this code!!!
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:16:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : In comp.os.linux.misc Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You appear to be operating under the assumption that the meaning
> I argue for is a new, recent change. It is not.
I was an Atheist about 25 years ago. I agree that it's a great
"default" position. But, I realized that I was guilty of the same thing
I accused the religious people of doing. I had a belief without really
investigating.
I started researching my position and read a lot of stuff. Both pro
and con. I have never read anywhere anything other than it's a
Atheistic "belief".
Please provide references...
> : I don't think it's good to allow a small group to change a definition
> : to suite it's agenda.
> I don't think it's good to allow a large group to change a
> definition to suit it's agenda - that of misrepresenting
> the smaller group.
The concept and the definition of "belief" is very old and
contains in part that belief is a "opinion" or a "conviction".
I don't understand how you can be a Athiest without a "opinion"
or "conviction" on the subject of God/god/gods.
Since, in my opinion (belief) you are hung up on the non-secular
part of the definition of the word "belief", I feel that instead
of the larger group suiting it's agenda, you may be twisting
the definition of the word "belief".
In short you appear to be trying to change the definition of
the word "belief".
> : It appears that some Atheist would rather redefine the situation
> : to make it look like the "others" have belief systems, while they
> : do not.
> That's not re-definition. It's plain fact. The burden of proof
> is on the one proposing the existance of something, not the
> one doubting it.
The subject is not which posistion is right (or wrong) but
is the two positions of the same kind.
I have not tried or claimed that my belief is correct while
yours in incorrect, only that we both have beliefs on the subject.
We are on the same logical footing. We both have an "opinion" or
"conviction" on a subject that is unprovable using science either
way.
> : I think it might be related to the belief that Science is not a
> : set of beliefs.
> It's not. It's a set of methods to be used to arrive at beliefs.
I like your last sentence, a materialist would feel forced to change
the last word from "beliefs" to "facts".
I would only add that it takes faith to believe in the Scientific
Method.
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:26:47 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Here I've got to disagree with you. I think .NET will fail, utterly,
> more because it is an untenable idea to use "the Internet as a
> platform", particularly when you are starting with Microsoft code.
> Perhaps it could work on Unix, though. And in contrast to your belief
> that Microsoft will refuse to support any operating systems other than
> its own, I think you missed the important part of the vaporous
> definition so helpfully provided. The idea is that .NET will be "the
> platform", replacing the OS in that regard. IOW, .NET is Microsoft's
> attempt to make their monopoly portable and extend it across all
> operating systems. Frankly, it will fail because Microsoft will lose
> the ability to successfully monopolize within a few months, and there is
> no real possibility that .NET will work well enough to "capture" a
> market.
The Internet is a tremendously slow domain in which to work. Sure,
you can get lucky and get a quick response and a 260 Kb/s download
rate once in awhile. But anything with a significant give-and-take
will feel very slow to users (especially to users of those faster
and more responsive non-Microsoft operating systems).
At the moment, I feel in good agreement with T. Max's observations
above.
However, if .NET (what an arrogant name for that freaking "product"!
Seems to me there ought to be a class-action suit against them for
absconding with a "dot" name) becomes a reasonably portable way to
run Microsoft software on a number of systems, and to run foreign
software on Microsoft systems,it will have done some good, just
like Java.
On the other hand, Crimosoft stole the name .NET to fool people into
thinking that their concept was something radical and all-encompassing.
At best, it will be a good hack.
Luckily for Microsoft, 800 MHz 256 MB machines are commonplace nowadays.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:26:53 GMT
Fermin Sanchez wrote:
>
> Hi Norman
>
> "Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ONAg6.5171$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >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.:
>
> Now that's a surprise ...
>
> > "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."
>
> Quite a professional documentation, if they really use this words in there.
> And who said MS doesn't use QoS? Try Windows 2000, it's been implemented AND
> it works. What about Linux?
>
Have reached an agreement all of you who don't know a thing about
networking to post on the subject?
Do you know what QoS is? Try to explain it in a few words, then try to
explain in a few words what TOS is, then read what you've written (if
you've written anything). Then read your posting and understand why
you're making a fool of yourself.
> > 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.
>
> Now that's the only reason for you not to use Windows?
Well, don't you think that QoS is important enough? You made such a fuss
about it!
If something impairs it, I take it out of the network.
> --
>
> With kind regards
> Fermin Sanchez
> MCSE+i, MCT
What +i means? Ignorant? Well, it's unnecessary, Microsoft Certified
means the same thing. And it shows from the posting.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 23:52:14 GMT
> Ian Davey wrote:
> But if I ask you: "Where does the universe come from?", what, pray,
> will be your reply?
It will be "Where did wherever the Universe came from come from?"
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: "Osugi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:56:33 +0900
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "chrisv"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The majority simply need email and web browsing, maybe a quick editor to
>>bang out a recipe or a letter to grandma.
>>
>>Paying the windows tax for this makes little sense.
>
> Nonsense. Even my 6 year old daughter has dozens of apps she runs on
> her machine. Are ANY of these available on Linux? Not.
Dozens sounds like an exaggeration. But granted that your daughter may
have some childrens apps that are only available for windows and maybe
mac, that doesn't change the fact that for many older children and
adults, computer use is limited to web surfing, email, instant messaging
or chatting, word processing (reports, letters, and the such), home
finances, and maybe some multimedia (digital cameras, mp3s, etc).
For these, a typical linux distro comes with more than enough software.
Windows boxen might, depending on what the company decides to sell you.
Whatever you think of MS Office (or even just Word), it is a bit of
overkill if all you are doing is writing school papers or letters to
grandma. An expensive bit of overkill, more so when you add in the cost
of the os.
--
Osugi Sakae
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner
research for your reading pleasure)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 01:01:35 GMT
Hi Mig,
> The advocacy newsgroups dont have any weight. It looks as Linux is under
> direct attack from MS at the moment... just look at their FUD-"actions"
> just the previous weeks. I do recall comments about how they dealed with
> OS/2 in phorums used by IBM OS/2 customers and expect the same behaviour
> against Linux.
Can you enlighten about what they were? I was once an OS/2 Warp user before
and for a while after Windows 95 was introduced. I also experienced the
incompatibities that Microsoft introduced into DR-DOS as well (the Windows
ones I managed to overcome. The Microsoft CD-ROM extensions (mscdex.exe)
that refused to run on anything but MS-DOS got me in the end).
> What i would like to know is what are the arenas they will
> choose - i doubt advocacy groups have any interest since people here are
too
> "geeky" and cant be convinced this way.
They're a place where hopefully we can keep each other informed about what
is going on. It is my present opinion that Microsoft has already lost the
Linux is not technologically suitable for the enterprise battle, no matter
what FUD they come up with (that's why I find their articles rather amusing
and leave it to the intelligence of others to see through the doublespeak).
I enjoy the honesty and openness of many free software development
processes. For instance it is so refreshing to see Linus and Alan having
good-natured battles of wits in the interest of technological superiority.
But what I am greatly concerned about is that Microsoft may make Linux (or
other open source servers) redundant by linking compelling client services
into the necessity to use Windows servers (to date Microsoft's greatest
success in this area has probably been in the field of Windows Media
servers. .NET, if successful, will make this look like child's play).
And secondly, if Microsoft starts flexing its patent muscles there'll be a
lot of open source developers naturally worried. It may eventually lead to
patent reform (but the interim would be very messy with some developers
deciding to halt specific projects and splits in the community as some
decide to ignore what might turn out to be overly broad claims). If
Microsoft goes that route it will be terribly damaging to their image, even
in the most non-technical of circles.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 01:03:25 -0000
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:55:08 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> > It does. You dump out postscript, and let the printer/filter deal with
>> > it. Any app can print to any printer.
>>
>> You can have any colour you like, so long as it's black.
>>
>> And what happens if you don't like black, or don't have a postscript
>> printer?
>
>I have an HP 870cse color non-postscript printer and I have colors.
>"Ghostscript" is the rendering engine in Linux for non-postscript printers.
I have an HP 540C color non-postscript printer that I have
been using to generate color printouts successfully since
when such a printer was considered a current model.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner
research for your reading pleasure)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 01:05:57 -0000
On 9 Feb 2001 22:58:36 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: "With Linux, we had to restart our servers on an average of once every week
>: or two," says Fenley.
>
Even so, this should be no problem at all since the
common Unix tools will allow you to automate this
process to the point where you might not hardly know
it's going on.
>I used to work for a place that make that malarkey claim about
>commercial unixen such as HPUX, AIX, and Solaris. The truth was
>that our turnkey system (built on unix) had enough bugs and
>quirks that we would sometimes leave behind runaway processes.
>We told clients that it was just "normal" to have to reboot
>a unix machine once every couple of weeks just to make sure
>everything was good. Since most of the clients were not
>computer experts, they believed it, and the company didn't have
>to admit that it was its own software that was at fault.
>I am very glad I quit working there. It's hard to take pride
>in a job where your 'superiors' are pulling stunts like that.
>
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: La-Z-Boy and the Decline of Western Civilisation
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 01:09:32 GMT
Hi all,
I missed this piece from Wininfo last month. There's no advocacy here. It's
just so funny to see who Microsoft partners with:
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=19611
"As if we weren't fat and lazy enough"
'In an effort to partner with every company on the planet, Microsoft has
entered into a strategic alliance with La-Z-Boy, makers of puffy, reclining
chairs, to create the world's first "e-cliner," a Web-enabled reclining
chair...."
(It's short and I didn't quote the whole thing in order to respect Wininfo's
advertising revenue).
Have fun,
Adam
PS: The chair will be called the "Explorer" :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************