Linux-Advocacy Digest #113, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Feb 01 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(T. Max Devlin)
Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux... (J Sloan)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is awful ("Mike Byrns")
New Linux site (Richard Snow)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(T. Max Devlin)
Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux... (Tim Hanson)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 05:32:17 GMT
I hate to horn in on Ed's exchange, and I'm sure he doesn't need the
help, but you know I just can't resist...
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> IDC only counts vendor acknowledged sales, magazines, books, and
>> downloads are extra.
>
>And how do you know that Red Hat or Mandrake isn't acknowledging those
>sales?
What makes you think they do? You'll have to support such a conjecture,
as the information we have is that they do not. How we know it is true
is not at issue, except as an argument from ignorance. How surprising
to see you providing an argument from ignorance, Erik.
[...]
>> Erik, why do you think they settled out of court in the Caldera
>> DRDOS suit ?
>
>Because Caldera settled for less than 1% of their suit? Hell, it was a
>great deal for MS. Prolonged legal fees would have been much more than what
>they paid. I think Caldera just wanted to get their money back that they
>put into the lawsuit.
Proving itself innocent of the blatant anti-trust violations it was
accused of didn't seem attractive to the world's richest corporation?
>> It was to keep just such sabotage of third party software from being
>> added to the list of their monopolistic crimes.
>
>No, it was because they had dozens of lawsuits going at the same time and
>wanted to be done with it, and had the opportunity to do so cheaply. It's
>the same reason Sun settled for a paltry 20 million.
Too bad they can't 'settle' with the government, eh?
[...]
>> >MS is not delaying any of these things. The market is.
>> >
>> <Chad_Meyers>I demand proof! Put up or shut up.</Chad_Meyers>
>
>And what proof is there that MS is delaying them?
Again, since markets can't delay things, but producers can, one would
have to ask what evidence you have that it is not MS delaying these
things, as Ed seems to be indicating.
[...]
>Where did you get the idea i'm trying tell OEM's anything? OEM's decide
>their own bottom lines, and so far it's not been something that their
>customers ask for, or they would provide it.
The old 'fait accompli' argument you are so fond of. But it doesn't
explain the restrictive licensing preventing OEMs from doing that very
thing, mandated by Microsoft. Perhaps you'll jump back into pretending
that since, subsequent to Microsoft being convicted of monopolization,
OEMs are supporting Linux, they always would have, but for lack of
advertising to bring Linux to the attention of the consumer.
>> Even if you are right about most not being used, how is that
>> different from M$ including a traverse the maze game in Excel ?
>
>Well, for starters, the maze credits take up a small amount of disk space
>compared to a full linux installation, second, it doesn't require two
>complete configuration steps.
Wow! Two whole complete steps? My God, its a wonder anyone's bothering
at all, let alone several million people adopting Linux every year.
>> Or does M$ get an automatic exemption from disk space waste because
>> they wrote the bloat into an application ?
>
>The "bloat" of Office is hundreds of megs and megs of clipart, templates,
>samples, and other junk people don't use that often. The applications
>themselves are not that big.
No, the DLLs themselves are huge; application bloat indicates an
excessive number of useless features, more than raw disk space used for
such junk as clip art.
>> Another thing, don't assume that M$ recommendations about system
>> configuration have anything to do with what is best for the end
>> user. What about relocating the user desktop into that second
>> partition ? Then when the next upgrade/reinstall/whatever happens
>> the user work files do not automatically get wiped out.
>
>Why would they get whiped out when you upgrade or reinstall? Under 9x and
>NT4, the desktop was stored in a subdirectory of the Windows/Winnt
>directory. This changed in 2000, so deleting your Windows/Winnt directory
>doesn't destroy your desktop or your settings unless you format the whole
>drive for some stupid reason.
Well, the fact that MS has moved the profiles directory for no purpose
(its what the information relates to, not where its stored, that is the
problem) is irrelevant, but I'm growing very bored with your quibbling,
so I'll leave the rest to Ed's good graces.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux...
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 05:40:04 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Thanks. Sounds as unusable, to me, as focus follows mouse, a feature
> I've never understood, really. I have noticed its very popular with
> programmers and admins, but I'm not sure if its because the
> functionality is more appropriate for their typical tasks, or just
> because that's the way they got used to back in college when they
> learned Unix.
To each his own, that's why X windows leaves the
choice up to you - I prefer focus follows mouse and
autoraise, I hate having to explicitly click on a window
to make it active.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: 11 Feb 2001 05:40:33 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9655km$2qr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Im stating that according to the licensing structure, I can do whatever
>> > the
>> >> hell I want with it, including sell it for profit. Thats almost
> exactly
>> > as
>> >> good as owning it.
>>
>> > But it's not owning it. And you can't do "whatever the hell [you] want
> with
>> > it". For instance, you can't link it to proprietary code and distribute
> it,
>> > nor can you modify it and remove copyrights or the license.
>>
>> I most certianly can link it to proprietary code and distribute it, you
>> idiot. Time to read a bit more carefully, funkybreath.
> Stop being such a moron.
>> What I cannot do is cause the open source code that falls under the GPL
>> to be non-functional in the face of proprietary, CLOSED SOURCE code.
> No. I will quote:
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it,
> thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
> modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you
> also meet all of these conditions: "
> ...
> "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
> in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
> licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
> this License. "
> Which means that you either a) License your proprietary code as GPL if you
> link to it, or b) if you don't have the right to relicense the proprietary
> code, you can't distribute the proprietary code that is linked with GPL'd
> code.
Idiot, linking to code does NOT nesessarily mean USING HUNKS OF GPL'D CODE
IN YOUR CLOSED SOURCE CODE.
You've never done a lick of programming in your life, have you. All youve
done is read books.
I could write a sleek, cool linux installer that covered every goddamn
piece of hardware in existance entirely in C++, compile the whole damn
thing and NEVER release the source. I could then take said closed source
application and package it with any piece of GPL code that other people
have written for linux (see mandrake-redhat, suse-debian) and sell it for
as much as I felt like selling it for.
> So stop making a fool of yourself.
>> For example, I could not make the operating system non-functional without
>> the presence of internet explorer.
> There is no such clause in the GPL. None at all.
Yes there is actually, and you just quoted it.
This isnt the first time youve grossly misunderstood the GPL, and god knows
it wont be the last
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:54:25 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I hate to horn in on Ed's exchange, and I'm sure he doesn't need the
> help, but you know I just can't resist...
>
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> IDC only counts vendor acknowledged sales, magazines, books, and
> >> downloads are extra.
> >
> >And how do you know that Red Hat or Mandrake isn't acknowledging those
> >sales?
>
> What makes you think they do? You'll have to support such a conjecture,
> as the information we have is that they do not. How we know it is true
> is not at issue, except as an argument from ignorance. How surprising
> to see you providing an argument from ignorance, Erik.
It was stated that they do not include such sales. I'm asking how they know
that. IDC reports whatever Red Hat and whatever companies tell them, which
very well could include such. I'm not saying they do or do not include
them, I'm just asking how they know they're not included. Did Red Hat,
SUSE, TurboLinux, etc.. post statements saying so?
> [...]
> >> Erik, why do you think they settled out of court in the Caldera
> >> DRDOS suit ?
> >
> >Because Caldera settled for less than 1% of their suit? Hell, it was a
> >great deal for MS. Prolonged legal fees would have been much more than
what
> >they paid. I think Caldera just wanted to get their money back that they
> >put into the lawsuit.
>
> Proving itself innocent of the blatant anti-trust violations it was
> accused of didn't seem attractive to the world's richest corporation?
Probably, but Why didn't MS just settle for what Caldera was asking for
then, instead of waiting for them to come crawling with a pitiful less than
1% offer?
> >> It was to keep just such sabotage of third party software from
being
> >> added to the list of their monopolistic crimes.
> >
> >No, it was because they had dozens of lawsuits going at the same time and
> >wanted to be done with it, and had the opportunity to do so cheaply.
It's
> >the same reason Sun settled for a paltry 20 million.
>
> Too bad they can't 'settle' with the government, eh?
According to an article I read in Wired, written by someone with close
access to both sides and was generally impartial, the government wanted to
settle. The states wouldn't allow it though. MS even offered up some key
concessions.
> >> >MS is not delaying any of these things. The market is.
> >> >
> >> <Chad_Meyers>I demand proof! Put up or shut up.</Chad_Meyers>
> >
> >And what proof is there that MS is delaying them?
>
> Again, since markets can't delay things, but producers can, one would
> have to ask what evidence you have that it is not MS delaying these
> things, as Ed seems to be indicating.
The market delays it by not demanding it.
> >Where did you get the idea i'm trying tell OEM's anything? OEM's decide
> >their own bottom lines, and so far it's not been something that their
> >customers ask for, or they would provide it.
>
> The old 'fait accompli' argument you are so fond of. But it doesn't
> explain the restrictive licensing preventing OEMs from doing that very
> thing, mandated by Microsoft. Perhaps you'll jump back into pretending
> that since, subsequent to Microsoft being convicted of monopolization,
> OEMs are supporting Linux, they always would have, but for lack of
> advertising to bring Linux to the attention of the consumer.
Which licensing agreements are those? Specifically. Quote one, or link to
one.
> >> Even if you are right about most not being used, how is that
> >> different from M$ including a traverse the maze game in Excel ?
> >
> >Well, for starters, the maze credits take up a small amount of disk space
> >compared to a full linux installation, second, it doesn't require two
> >complete configuration steps.
>
> Wow! Two whole complete steps? My God, its a wonder anyone's bothering
> at all, let alone several million people adopting Linux every year.
Installing Windows is one step, Installing Linux another. Why bother with
both when the customer can specify which he wants?
> >> Or does M$ get an automatic exemption from disk space waste because
> >> they wrote the bloat into an application ?
> >
> >The "bloat" of Office is hundreds of megs and megs of clipart, templates,
> >samples, and other junk people don't use that often. The applications
> >themselves are not that big.
>
> No, the DLLs themselves are huge; application bloat indicates an
> excessive number of useless features, more than raw disk space used for
> such junk as clip art.
And your evidence of this is what? Please, provide hard facts. What is the
memory footprint of a recent version of Word compared to recent versions of
it's competitors, WordPro, Abiword, WordPerfect 2000, StarOffice?
Hard facts. This should be easy for you to prove.
> >> Another thing, don't assume that M$ recommendations about system
> >> configuration have anything to do with what is best for the end
> >> user. What about relocating the user desktop into that second
> >> partition ? Then when the next upgrade/reinstall/whatever happens
> >> the user work files do not automatically get wiped out.
> >
> >Why would they get whiped out when you upgrade or reinstall? Under 9x
and
> >NT4, the desktop was stored in a subdirectory of the Windows/Winnt
> >directory. This changed in 2000, so deleting your Windows/Winnt
directory
> >doesn't destroy your desktop or your settings unless you format the whole
> >drive for some stupid reason.
>
> Well, the fact that MS has moved the profiles directory for no purpose
> (its what the information relates to, not where its stored, that is the
> problem) is irrelevant, but I'm growing very bored with your quibbling,
> so I'll leave the rest to Ed's good graces.
Oh, First Ed complains that the profiles are in a place they can be wiped
out, then you say they were moved for no valid reason. You two should
really get together and get your stories straight.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:06:13 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 06:30:23
> >Better than you've ever done :-)
>
> How dull.
A fitting retort you your incessant idiocy.
------------------------------
From: Richard Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux
Subject: New Linux site
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:08:09 GMT
Hello. I'm slowly developing a new Linux site and would like a few
people to review what I've done so far and make suggestions if they care
to. There are no graphics on my site because I'm not much of an artist,
and I hate slow downloading of pages with lots of images. (I am forced
to use Dialup because I can't afford satellite internet, am too far from
the phone company for DSL, and the cable modem service is still under
construction here (as in stringing fiber for the whole town). There are
also no ads.
The linux information page is at
http://snowrichard.dtdns.net/linuxinfo.html
If you see a page that says the server is down, try between 12:00 noon
and 10:00 PM Central time (US) or give me a call during daylight hours
if you wish. (903) 927 1737.
If you get TCP/error no route to host or server refused connection, my
dynamic IP probably just changed. Wait about 5 minutes and try again.
My connection drops off every 20 minutes or so if I am not using the
internet myself.
--
Richard Snow
http://snowrichard.dtdns.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:11:37 GMT
Thank you, as always, for your inimitable perspective, Rex.
Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:52:59
[...]
>> > Ironically, it was Linux that was
>> > driving the economic expansion of the last
>> > 7 years, which was actually riding a wave
>> > created by UNIX throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.
>>
>> ????? The fact that you can say this with a straight face amazes me.
>
>Were you there when the first version of Opera was released? I was. Were you
>there when the SLS Linux came in an "ammo box" of 100 floppies? I was.
>
>Were you there when Mosiac 2.0 came out? I was.
>
>Were you there when 40 publishers started an exclusive mailing list for
>publishers who wanted to put their content on the Internet? I was.
>
>Where you there when the first commercial web sites went up? I was.
Porn, or non-porn? ;-)
>Where you there when Slackware 1.0 came out? I was.
>
>Where you there when the first Nationally Branded news service put their
>Content on the Web? I was the one who orchestrated the move in November
>1993. I used an 80386/16 and a free-wais server to provide a "proof of
>concept". We signed the deal October of 1993, after a trip made on the 19th.
>
>http://www.open4success.com/Olnews/TripToWais.html
>
>This is the original memo, preserved in it's pristine purity.
>
>Greg Gerdy is still at Dow Jones and heads the entire Web Presence
>for Factiva a Dow Jones/Rueters company.
>
>http://www.factiva.com/about/keypeople/gg.asp?node=about-link2
Its just so cool seeing someone like Erik Funkenbusch get the "R.E.
Ballard wake up call". ;-)
>> I'm just not in the mood for another round
>> of correcting you on your massive
>> falsifications Rex. Please, go on.
>
>Does any one know where I can get access to a 6250 BPI Reel-to-Reel tape
>drive? I've got some really greate usenet dialogue from 1983-1987 that I'd
>love to get onto my web site.
Hell, Rex, I got dozens of hits with a webferret search. Surely you're
not still living the meager existence you did in your youth; it would be
a real service to the industry if even one of these conversations proved
interesting. Go ahead and splurge, and get it done, please!
http://www.tapeconversions.com/default_tape_srvs.htm
>I just got a new site - Open4Success.org and I've got about 2 gig
>of spare space available that I'll be using to put up some of the
>content I had to remove over the last few years due to lack of space.
You're a gem and a peach, man. I can't wait to dive in.
BTW: You are visitor [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux...
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:26:39 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:55:17 GMT;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> What is 'sloppy focus'?
> >
> >It's like "focus follows mouse" except that the
> >focus doesn't leave the old window until you
> >actually move the mouse over a new window.
> >
> >in "focus follows mouse" the focus would leave
> >the old window as soon as the mouse moved
> >off.
>
> Thanks. Sounds as unusable, to me, as focus follows mouse, a feature
> I've never understood, really. I have noticed its very popular with
> programmers and admins, but I'm not sure if its because the
> functionality is more appropriate for their typical tasks, or just
> because that's the way they got used to back in college when they
> learned Unix.
>
I think on virtually all Linux desktops you can choose from a variety of
behaviors. I have mine set to "focus follows mouse" for my Linux
system, and of course "click focus" for Windows (no choice). I prefer
"focus follows mouse," but if I get tired of it I change it. What's the
big deal?
--
Sixtus V, Pope from 1585 to 1590 authorized a printing of the Vulgate
Bible. Taking no chances, the pope issued a papal bull automatically
excommunicating any printer who might make an alteration in the text.
This he ordered printed at the beginning of the Bible. He personally
examined every sheet as it came off the press. Yet the published
Vulgate Bible contained so many errors that corrected scraps had to be
printed and pasted over them in every copy. The result provoked wry
comments on the rather patchy papal infallibility, and Pope Sixtus had
no recourse but to order the return and destruction of every copy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:29:52 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001
19:15:22 -0600;
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:963v5o$bv8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Furthermore, Windows ME and Windows 2000 both have "Linux Stompers"
>> built into their initial boot sequence. Even if the image is mastered,
>> Windows will still attempt to disable Linux.
>
>This is completely false. Please, be my guest. Explain how this works.
I was wondering what the 'image is mastered' part meant.
>> > > and to delay the ability of Linux to support
>> > > USB scanners, Cameras, and "WinPrinters".
>> >
>> > MS is not delaying any of these things. The market is.
>>
>> Correction. Microsoft has demanded that all vendors who support
>> USB sign nondisclosure agreements which prevent BOTH the release
>> of information to the Open Source community AND the deployment
>> of Modules that can be shipped in binary form.
>
>Excuse me? Microsoft doesn't own the USB spec.
Purportedly.
>> Microsoft attempted to do the same with PCI PnP, requiring that vendors
>> provide only that information which would enable Microsoft to decide which
>> drivers and configuration options to use. It wasn't until Adaptec broke
>> ranks (after Microsoft broke it's promise to replace IDE drivers with SCSI
>> and instead simply put the IDE driver into the SCSI configuration box).
>> Adaptec decided that since Microsoft breached the spirit and intent of the
>> agreement,, that they would break the spirit and intent of their NDA by
>> providing Red Hat with the information required to decode Plug-N-Play.
>
>No, hardware vendors don't want their competition to gain any trade secrets
>from their driver source. That's why they don't release their source code.
That's bullshit, Erik; a fabrication imagined to excuse the maneuvering
by Microsoft to prevent anything but Windows drivers from being made
available, and the ability to use this to artificially prevent
competition amongst peripheral manufacturers. That you can reverse
engineer hardware by reading, as opposed to reverse engineering, source
code is a bogeyman that denies the whole reality of producing hardware
at a profit.
>> Phillips has broken the "code of silence" with their USB camera,
>> providing binary modules that can be used with their Web Cameras.
>
>Even if such contracts exist, they'd be illegal. Since a contract is a
>legally binding entity, if it's illegal, you're not bound by it's rules. So
>why would anyone follow one? MS couldn't sue you.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Seriously, though, I think it would have made a LOT of sense to include
an "I am not a lawyer" denial of liability for such a claim, Erik. To
suggest that all of Microsoft's "lock in" contracts are simply illegal
and to be ignored is rather naive, if nothing else.
>> > Because many clients WANT that.
>> > There is also the option to buy systems without it.
>>
>> The key is that Microsoft has gone to most of the Fortune 1000,
>> and roped them into Exclusive agreements that required Windows NT
>> or Windows 2000 on all desktops, laptops, and servers. Only
>> consultants have the right to use Linux on their own machines.
>
>Not true at all. I've worked with more than 20 different Fortune 1000
>companies over the last few years, and all of them have had non-MS OS's
>running somewhere, sometimes even on desktops.
You presume those desktops weren't originally purchased with a Windows
license, and that by "right to use", Rex meant the inability to use
Linux. I've seen Linux, and of course much Solaris, on desktops at many
of the dozen Fortune 100 companies I've dealt with in the last few
years, but certainly not as a mainstream implementation. At least half
had a Windows machine available, though, even of the small minority of
experts which didn't use it as their desktop.
>Hell, if this were true, IBM would be out of business, as according to them,
>OS/2 related business brings in something like 7 billion dollars in revenue
>every year. IBM's primary clients are the Fortune 1000.
Actually, a lot of that is server licenses, though OS/2, as a truly
progressive and innovative OS design, does still have a large following
on the desktop.
Large in comparison to what is necessary to sustain an OS, of course,
not large in comparison to monopolization.
[...]
>> Were you there when Mosiac 2.0 came out? I was.
>
>Depending on what you mean by "Were you there", yes. I've been on the
>internet since 1991.
Actually, I would expect he meant something a bit more than 'on the
Internet'. If it were anyone else, like myself for instance, I'd
consider that 'being there'. But this is Rex Ballard, after all;
wouldn't surprise me if "there" to him meant sitting at a table with
Marc Andreesen during some announcement or critical decision. He seems
to have credentials that make your sock-puppet expertise into a cartoon.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:32:48 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wckh6.69710$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
<snip>
>
> Why don't they try to get the fundamental things right on 2000 before
adding
> more cruft that doesn't work right? I've just spent most of the
afternoon
> tryng
> to keep at least one of a pair of win2k web servers running, but they
keep
> popping a modal dialog box (from a service???) about an inetinfo.exe
> application
> error: "The instruction at "0x65f2b3d" referenced memory at
"0x0000006c".
> The memory could not be "read". These are simple vbscript asp pages
using
> the built-in msxml object. The bug would be bad enough, but these are
> remote
> machines accessed through VNC and it screws up the network to the point
> where
> vnc disconnects immediately after authentication - so you can't even tell
it
> to
> reboot. The 'iisrest /reboot' command from another server fails also.
> After
> the first attempt it just says a reboot is already in progress but it
never
> finishes.
> How does anyone deal with this kind of trouble?
>
> By contrast, a busier Linux server running a mix of perl and java pages
has
> been
> running well over a year without any trouble:
>
> $uptime
> 5:31pm up 450 days, 22:56, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
>
That some individuals around here have molded this MS monstrosity into
their Golden Calf boggles the mind.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:34:07 GMT
Said MH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:01:31 -0500;
>
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )"
>wrote in message news:961qov$pkr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>[MASSIVE snippage]
>
>Will the real Larry Wall please stand up?
>
>Oh, and pass the mushrooms please.
Does Rex know Larry Wall? I'd love to get in touch with Mr. Wall, not
to discuss perl, but an alarm instantiation model he designed for
network management software.
--
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
******************************
