Linux-Advocacy Digest #136, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Feb 01 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (ZnU)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Nic Bellamy)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses (J Sloan)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (J Sloan)
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: 12 Feb 2001 04:09:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 07:15:50
>>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:M2ph6.19689$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:OLoh6.1188$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >
>>> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > > Tom Wilson wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The very fact that feature is being proposed is enough to conjure
>>up
>>> > past
>>> > > > memories of subscription based software from the early eighties. It
>>is
>>> > a
>>> > > > blatant rip-off and causes your TCO to skyrocket. Actually, i'm
>>> > surprised
>>> > > > its' taken this long, with the Internet being what it is now, for
>>> > someone
>>> > > > to seriously pursue such a course again. The consumer sector said
>>no,
>>> > > > resoundingly, to DIVX and i'm hoping that the commercial sector
>>takes
>>> > the
>>> > > > same tact with this profit mongering.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I've heard some of the jucier technical details of .NET and, as a
>>> > > > developer, I see the potential. I also see the scenario I just
>>ranted
>>> > on.
>>> > > > We've made the decision not to develop for it and we won't. If it
>>takes
>>> > > > off, and I don't see it doing so... One of the alternative OS's
>>will
>>> > just
>>> > > > have to be modified to counter it. Be it Linux or BSD.
>>> > >
>>> > > As I understand it, .NET will be accessible to any OS, it's just that
>>> > > Windows tools will be the first down the pike. Of course, that
>>> > > common-language substrate will be lowest-common-denominator, and
>>> > > Microsoft will change it whenever they see fit, giving developers
>>fits.
>>> > > It'll be as stable as OLE/COM/COM+/ActiveX/DCOM.....
>>> >
>>> > As best I can determine it IS OLE/COM/COM+/ActiveX/DCOM. Nothing new.
>>Just
>>> > a label and more promises with that little subscription wrinkle added.
>>>
>>> Well, then you really have no idea what you're talking about then.
>>> You probably don't know what OLE, COM/ActiveX, DCOM, or COM+ are in the
>>
>>No, I only program for the above on a daily basis....
>>
>>> first place, and you certainly don't have the slightest clue what .NET
>>> is, as evidenced by the above paragraph.
>>>
>>> In the future, please refrain from ebarassing yourself by making such
>>> ignorant from-the-ass comments as above. At least take the time to read
>>> one article, even one paragraph of an article that summarizes .NET before
>>> even making a comment on it.
>>
>>I'm not "ebarassed" in the least.
>>(Learn to type)
>>
>>Also, in the future, don't make wild assumptions about a poster's
>>experience level.
>>
>>PS: It appears I've tread upon a sacred cow of yours. Sorry.
> You give Chad too much credit for intelligence, Tom. You gave him an
> easy target for his silly rhetoric, that's all. Any discussion of .NET
> provides this 'out' for the sock puppets; I'm sure its been discussed
> extensively at the sock puppet briefings. The vague and amorphous
> definition of '.NET' simultaneously indicates to those who understand
> technology that it is nothing so much as a marketing banner and an
> attempt at monopolization, while at the same time allowing MSdroids to
> play such games whenever they discuss it. The 'don't embarrass
> yourself' response from Chief Troll Chad does indicate you've hit the
> mark, though.
> This will happen whenever you try to dissect a product name for
> Microsoft's monopoly crapware; .NET can be described, just as with
> Windows, as whatever the old technology is not, even when it is nothing
> more than the old technology with a new name. Its handy that nobody but
> Microsoft 'has a clue' what it is, as it enables them to pretend it is
> whatever they wish it were, rather than dealing with what it is or, more
> importantly, what consumers think it is.
Again, dont be unfair. .NET actually really does exist, and it actually
really does have (a rather lengthy) definition.
The fact is that the idea is a reworking of the original point of JAVA, and
is bound to fail for alot of the same reasons along with a whole host of
different ones, one of the major ones being:
It will only work within a microsoft environment (OS, browser, etc); and
right now microsoft is only developing the sort of environment nessesary
for windows and MacOS.
Yes there is an internet explorer for Solaris. I've been using it for
a couple of years now, and its far, far more useless than even opera for
BeOS.
:)
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: 11 Feb 2001 22:12:09 -0600
let me reply by simply quoting yourself back to yourself.
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:966pdg$em5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Not one of you statements has said anything about Linux making inroads
> at the enterprise Level.
I have heard NOTHING about linux making gains anywhere past the frustrated
hobbyist level...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:15:12 GMT
In article <3a8698b1$0$23096@reader4>,
Mart van de Wege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <Ktwh6.236$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik,
>
>I see that you did find the time to argue semantics with Max,
>but that you haven't found the time to refute my posting
>regarding Microsofts OEM licenses.
>As long as you conveniently ignore everything that does not
>conform to you MS-centric worldview I don't think anyone is
>going to take you seriously.
Sock Puppets should never be taken seriously, it just pumps up their
ego and makes them harder to handle.
>Honestly Erik, you make so many basic mistakes in your debating
>style that refuting you is just not fun anymore. You're just too
>easy a target.
>
I think that Erik and Chad are about to be dropped for being
ineffective. Their tactic of assuming facts not in evidence is well
known now and having their statements refuted by publicly available
links, sometimes from M$ own site, has to be giving their handlers
thoughts about Charlie Ebert being right, they are more help than
hindrance to Linux advocates.
No one here seems to give their delusions and propaganda more than a
momentary consideration before seeking the contrary evidence.
Your post was a perfect example.
When presented with a fact they don't like they stop the thread.
When faced with a logical analysis which shows their statements to
be ludicrous on their face they change the subject or point back
up thread far enough that most systems will have purged the relevant
context.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: [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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:15:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Hauck <bobh -> haucks org> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:45:05 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>Three seconds searching on google finds that you are mistaken:
><http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2420035,00.html>
>
>MS took a $155 million charge against earnings for the settlement. This
>would imply that Caldera had sued for some $15.5 billion. Nope, they
>were suing for about $1 billion. So they settled for about 16%. Not too
>bad, really, and a far cry from your claim. They wouldn't have got a
>billion at trial, that was just the maximum they could plausibly claim.
>
Thanks for saving me the search Bob.
I recalled that 155 million so I knew his 1% was wrong but I was not
aware that he had been corrected on it before. That makes this time
a deliberate lie.
I don't think I will respond to anything else he says I have not
been in this group long enough to know what other lies he has already
been caught in and is just hoping to sneak them by the ones who
don't know better.
Erik, you are trying to deliberately spread false information and raise
doubts, without any evidence, against statements of other people.
Max is right you are nothing more than a Sock Puppet filled with
Microsoft propaganda.
I should have never responded to your original distortions.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:15:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> :)>Naturally, it only runs on Apple hardware. But if Apple can do it,
> :)>someone else can. Of course, Apple's strenth is making complex
> :stuff )>easy, and Mac OS X has been a long, long time in the making.
> :)> )>But Apple's goal with OS X was to beat the ease-of-use of
> :previous )>versions of Mac OS. A very difficult task, especially
> :given that the )>average Mac user notices user interface issues more
> :than the average PC )>user. To make waves in the x86 market, a
> :Unix-based challenger need only )>beat or match Windows ease-of-use.
> :Much easier.
>
> Actually, not so. If it were, then M$ would be having serious
> problems with Be. The thing is people know windows.
BeOS is a proprietary, single-source OS. So is Windows. So is Mac OS.
But Mac OS and Windows got into the desktop OS game early, so they have
the support of major developers and have user bases large enough to keep
those developers interested.
BeOS arrived at a time when the market was already staked out, and it
really didn't/doesn't have a chance.
Linux, because it's open and because it's based on Unix, an industry
standard (yes, I know it's not a "real" Unix), has a much better shot,
although the hype has certainly died. If Microsoft does something PC
makers _really_ don't like (exmaple: making XBox or some successor the
platform of choice for .Net and slowly taking over the hardware market),
the PC makers can jump to Linux, band together and turn it into
something usable.
> :)>> but your windows there only works right because it )>> is the
> :big boy. More people use it, so more people want hardware )>>
> :support, so it gets more. Jumper settings and special drive settings
> :)>> are just as much of a bitch in any OS. If jumper settings are
> :)>> correct, and everything is in as compatible a mode as possible,
> :the )>> OS should go in fine. Then you tell it what you have, or let
> :it find )>> it (or both), and then start messing around. )>> )>> And
> :putting on any new OS, it often helps to start w/ a barebones )>>
> :default-as-can-be system (generic S3ViRGE 4mb, SB16/Awe32, etc.)
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Nic Bellamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:30:35 +1300
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> There is a tremendous amount of activity going on there in Linux's favor.
> Look at all the folks who run Debian. I have 3 machines at my house running
> Debian.
To add some figures to the chaos -
In the last 3 years (roughly), over the course of 3 CD sets of Debian
(2.0, 2.1, and now 2.2) I or people working with me have installed at
least 250 different machines from these CD sets alone. This doesn't
count my RedHat CDs, Mandrake CDs, and SuSE CDs. At least 90% of these
machines are still in production; ranging from little 486 gateway
machines up to quad Xeon database servers.
These are the kind of figures that you can't find just by looking at CD
sales. Sure, some may get experimented with once and put on the shelf to
collect dust, but there are also a lot of people around that install
several machines from a single CD.
Regards,
Nic.
-- Nic Bellamy <nic at asterisk dot co dot nz>
IT Consultant, Asterisk Limited - http://www.asterisk.co.nz/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:47:52 GMT
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:32:06 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:8LFh6.68$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> The point is .NET is nothing new.
|
|Multiple language common runtime? Please point me to a URL where
|I can see where this has been done in the past.
UCSD p-code was mainly ( almost completely ) Pascal, but there were other languages.
This is from the '70s/'80s, and I'm running from my own memory here.
The P-Code Museum ( http://www.threedee.com/jcm/psystem/index.html ) mentions
other languages, but dosn't actually list any.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:42:34 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
> because he describes an obvoiusly faked scenario. It's not hard to see this.
Could you desvribe the parts you think are faked
and explain why?
> If I began by describing my linux installation failure by saying that after
> I booted a MS-DOS disk in order to run the linux setup utility you'd know
> something was amiss. Same thing here...
Yes, I would know something was amiss.
However he says that he started by trying to
boot from the windows cdrom. It wouldn't boot
from the cdrom.
After that, he used a microsoft boot floppy to run
fdisk, and blow away the Linux partitions, which
apparently caused windows some trouble.
microsoft fdisk kept telling him that the extended
partitions created drive letters, and wouldn't let
him delete them. Finally, he ended up using Linux
fdisk to repartiton the disk.
(Now that is competely beleivable, as I have
more than one windows using friend who has
had to resort to Linux fdisk when microsoft fdisk
couldn't repartition their drive.)
After that, he was able to boot from the cdrom
and begin the windows 2k setup.
It all rings true as far as I can see.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:44:42 GMT
Well you are certainly in for a rude awakening then -
BTW, the most frustrated computer users are those
who have to use ms windows. I see it every day.
IBM is investing over a billion dollars in Linux
this year alone - is IBM a "frustrated hobbyist"?
Linux has been extremely popular in the ISP and
web server markets, and is also becoming more
popular for other generic Unix services e.g. mail,
ftp, shell, nfs/nis service.
Now, with the backing of IBM, Oracle and other
industry leaders, Linux is poised to enter the data
center, not through the back door, as was the case
a few years ago, but right through the front door.
The scalability is there, the performance and reliability
are there, and the economic angle makes a lot of sense.
With the rapid maturation of the kde and gnome
desktop environments, it will become harder and
harder to justify the microsoft tax, and only those who
are well and truly, hopelessly locked in to the legacy
ms file formats will be forced to stay on the microsoft
merry go round.
Give it 5 years and we'll see where we're at.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:34:31 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:967ngu$m6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The point is .NET is nothing new.
>
> > Multiple language common runtime? Please point me to a URL where
> > I can see where this has been done in the past.
>
> www.python.org
>
> Of course, you're going to have to understand some of the details of
> python in order to understand its relevancy to this topic.
Well, at first glance, this still only looks like one language.
I'm talking about multiple languages. With .NET, there are least
these few in the works:
VB.NET
JScript.NET
C++.NET
C#
Perl.NET
I think I've heard about a few others, but I haven't
confirmed them, but I know at least there for sure are going
to be .NET languages.
They all compile to the common language runtime (CLR) which
can be executed on any platform the runtime is written for.
Currently, there are CLRs being written for all the Windows
platforms and for Linux. I'm sure that Solaris wouldn't
be far behind. Possibly HPUX as well.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: 12 Feb 2001 04:48:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:26:46 GMT,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <3a86d8e7$0$43853$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
>>
>>Look at the numbers they're talking about. TurboLinux is just SOARING with a
>>whooping 68% revenue growth (not profits, just revenue) which sounds
>>impressive until you realize that it's a jump from 1.8 million to 2.9
>>million. Give me a break, that's what two middle level managers at MS make.
>>Compaq spends that much every time it submits a webspec test. Dell spends
>>that much EVERY month on print ads in just two magazines. AND their
>>prediction for growth was LOWERED.
>
>Oh, almost forgot.
>
>You take $2,900,000 / $36 a box = 80,000 + boxes of TurboLinux was sold.
>Consider that TL is not exactly on the heap of the stack of liked Linux
>OS's, you take this across the entire gammit of Mandrake, RedHat, Slackware
>and so on, your probably figuring in a million Linux distributions went
>to be installed somewhere in that period of time.
>
>This doesn't even account for the downloads from people just taking the
>OS for free. For every box sold you can count on 4 others doing an upgrade
>or fresh install.
It's kind of ironic. Every time we do a 'apt-get dist-upgrade' to get
a new version of debian, Wintrolls have to *pay* for a new version of
Windows. The higher sales figures they are bragging about are a direct
result of them being forced to make more purchases. What a laugh!!
>
>There is a tremendous amount of activity going on there in Linux's favor.
>Look at all the folks who run Debian. I have 3 machines at my house running
>Debian.
>
>That's why I say between 10 and 20 % of the PS user base is currently
>using or trying Linux right now.
>
>
>--
>Charlie
>
> **DEBIAN** **GNU**
> / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
> / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
>/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
> http://www.debian.org
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
