Linux-Advocacy Digest #141, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Feb 01 03:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: AARON R. KULKIS HAS NO LIFE AND ASSUMES NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Steve Hix)
Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum? (Ray Chason)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:26:02 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:20:48 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:967a1u$n7r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:9670cl$2g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> pip ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> : F.U.D.
>> >>
>> >> Snipped.
>> >>
>> >> : Is someone paying these people?
>> >>
>> >> It wouldn't surprise me if some of the FUDmeisters are paid MS-Shills(tm).
>The
>> >> MS-Shills must hate the new department in computer stores, the Linux
>section.
>> >> Now, anyone can go to a store and buy Linux.
>>
>> > How come we're not seeing major in-roads in the OEM market? That's
>> > real success. When other vendors are willing to stake their profit
>> > on your product is when you have a real product. Until then it's
>> > just a novelty like "Bigmouth Billy Bass". Millons of people bought
>> > those too, but you don't see many hangding on the wall.
>>
>> > The truth is, people aren't buying Linux in the stores in mass
>> > quantities. Sales are rediculously low compared with all the other
>> > software on all the other shelves. Plus, many of the sales are
>> > buy-it-and-forget-it. Sales of Linux are in the millions, but the
>> > retention rate is probably pretty low. People buy it to play with it
>> > but then go back to Windows when they want to get something done.
>> > Most probably can't figure the damned thing out and just remove it
>> > and throw the CD away or give it to a friend.
>>
>> An interesting theory. Do you have hard evidence to back it up?
>
>Well, logical deduction, really. Linux OS sales remain fairly
>stagnant, growing, but at very small rates. Application sales
>have not increased for Linux applications. OEMs have only token
>support for Linux, if at all. There's no strong backing of Linux
>anywhere. What little in-roads Linux has made, it squanders by
>making sure that customers never buy an upgrade version, and
>that they never buy application software, thus making commercial
>software development for Linux suicide.
well, I have bought every version of SuSE since 6.0, I pass on the older
version to a friend, and upgrade happily. Also, I have bought some commercial
S/W, whereas I buy none for windows.
You make assertions, but have no facts to back them up. Not too surprising I
suppose. You claim that linux OS sales remain fairly stagnant, got any numbers
to back that up? You also claim that linux users never buy application s/w, got
any numbers on that? or is it more supposition? IBM is putting over a billion,
(that's 1,000,000,000) dollars into linux, and you call that "no strong backing
of linux" Do you often have this sort of credibility problem?
>
>>
>> >> You have a choice of distros, some optimised for servers or
>> >> firewalls, or whatever. You can as of now go to a store and buy
>> >> _SLACKWARE_! No muss, no fuss, no mail order.
>>
>> > Of course, you're wasting your money. Each distro does something
>> > well, but doesn't everything well in general. I guess you could
>> > buy all of them to accomplish the varying tasks, but in general
>> > people are seeing it's not really that great and they can't
>> > get anything done. They switch back to Windows and become productive
>> > again. The sales numbers confirm this.
What numbers chad? do you have some real numbers? do share, please. Explain to
me why the linux section at the local bookstores just keeps on growing, with
more and more titles, from more and more publishers. Must be because they don't
sell, huh. Why I bet that store employees at Borders just love to secretly take
stuff from the shelves and order more stuff, to pretend that it's selling,
yeah, that must be it.
>> What exactly *are* the sales numbers? Specifically?
>
>Red Hat and several others are required to post their sales figures
>every quarter. Do the research and find out youself. They're
>freely available. In fact, I bet you can even find them on
>Red Hat's site, among others.
So the answer is, you have no idea... hmm, (wanders over to Red Hat's site)
nope, no info there, that's one bet you loose. what does google get re: redhat
sales figures? Gee Chad, I get pointers to a story on Cnet.com, which says that
Linux is now the #2 server OS. (Behind NT)
"Linux is moving much more rapidly than we thought," IDC analyst Dan
Kusnetzky said. "We had projected it would be No. 2 in 2002 or 2003. It
happened in 1999."
also
"Linux shipments grew 92 percent from 1998 to 1999, faster than any other
operating system and faster than the average 23 percent unit growth. That
number could under-count the actual number of shipments, since IDC counts
only sales of the software, not the free downloads. In addition, a purchased
copy of Linux may be installed on as many computers as the customer
wants, which isn't the case with most operating systems."
According to the article. Linux _server_ sales were in the neighbourhood of 1.3
million, contrasting with NT's 2.1 million... doesn't look so good for the
redmond team folks, the newcomer is gaining fast.
Granted, these aren't Redhat only numbers, but RH is the biggest in the US
market at least.
and this is from 1999. Wonder where it's at now?
Of course, now that redhat is pushing into the embedded market also, we'll have
to throw in those numbers too.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:11:17 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Ktwh6.236$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >No, hardware vendors don't want their competition to gain any trade
> secrets
> > >from their driver source. That's why they don't release their source
> code.
> >
> > That's bullshit, Erik; a fabrication imagined to excuse the maneuvering
> > by Microsoft to prevent anything but Windows drivers from being made
> > available, and the ability to use this to artificially prevent
> > competition amongst peripheral manufacturers. That you can reverse
> > engineer hardware by reading, as opposed to reverse engineering, source
> > code is a bogeyman that denies the whole reality of producing hardware
> > at a profit.
>
> Well, if it's so easy, what's your argument then? Linux developers
should
> be able to just reverse engineer the hardware right away to create
drivers
> for Linux.
>
> You should really think about how your statements erode your position
before
> making them.
>
> The fact is, yes, anything can be reverse engineered, but it takes time.
> Lots of it. And money. The 3-6 month advantage a company gains by
forcing
> their competitors to reverse engineer their work is plenty of lead-time
in a
> market that creates a whole new generation every 6-9 months.
<Keeping out of the present argument>
Amen to that. If you factor the time=money equation, its' a losing
proposition. Adding more programmers to the mix to speed things along only
makes the situation worse. (I was drafted into a similar situation a long
while back and took my fair share of lumps)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:15:10 GMT
In article <sxGh6.330$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3a869982$0$23109@reader4...
>> Erik,
>>
>> I see you are arguing semantics with Max again, while completely
>> ignoring my post giving you proof of Microsofts OEM licensing
>> practices. Honestly, your debating style breaks so many laws of
>> rhetoric, that arguing with you is just not fun anymore, you're
>> just too easy a target.
>
>You should read all the messages in a thread before making comments like
>this. It only makes you look impatient and stupid.
>
I notice that you again failed to address his post.
You not get to the next level of SockPuppetHood if you keep running
away from unpleasant facts instead of the "approved" tactic of
responding with "It does not say they could not load others, just
that they could not alter the Microsoft boot sequence."
You must try harder Erik.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: AARON R. KULKIS HAS NO LIFE AND ASSUMES NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:15:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <cmGh6.306$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>I did answer it in another post, this response was to his idiotic
>>impatience.
>>
>>Stop butting in when you don't know what's going on.
>>
>
>Is EF still not answering the basic question about what .net is?
>
>Well, Chad Myer's knows. He's not a dumb ass appearently.
>Perhaps we should just fight with somebody who know's his head
>from his ass, like Chad Myers.
>
>Maybe Chad is smarter than you are Erik....
>
>
Neither one is particularly smart but Chad seems to have a lot more
M$ propaganda to spew forth.
Perhaps there are different levels to make a Sock Puppet hierarchy ?
--
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 07:15:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001
> [...]
>>You should really think about how your statements erode your position before
>>making them.
>
>You should stop with such pathetic posturing, as it radically decreases
>my desire to even bother with your lame-ass responses.
>
>Do you and Chad actually have a 'form troll' that MS gives out at the
>sock puppet meetings? You both use the same 'tsk-tsk' technique to add
>a condescending note to your responses; flathead does it, too. Are we
>to suppose that its merely coincidence?
>
Remember that M$ needs something to copy for success.
Maybe Sock Puppets are the first true M$ innovation since Bob.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:21:04 GMT
In article <966chh$4lh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <96067r$arv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > > <95i0sr$p64$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >
> > > > >Microsoft's assertion that Linux is not a technical thread is
> > > > >actually absurd. Eventually, Linux will reach the mainstream
> > > > >and executive desktops. When it does, Microsoft will be unable
> > > > >to pretend that it has originated technology that was forged in
> > > > >the cauldron of Open Source.
> > > >
> > > > They've had a long time to get there...
> >
> > Actually, Linux has only been doing Desktop User oriented
> > systems since July of 1998. Up until that time the focus
> > was on ease of installation and ease of server administration.
> > I July of 1998, Linus officially challenged the Linux community
> > to "Take the Desktop". One year later, KDE 1.0 was released.
> > Two years later, KDE 2.0 was available. Star Office 5.2 was
> > released along with many other Desktop User applications which are
> > now part of the Mandrake 7.2 and SuSE 7.0 releases.
>
> Erm. Excuse me, but please donīt rewrite history, if you were not
> where things happened.
I appreciate your clarification of history below. Again, Microsoft had 300
million seats when KDE 1.0 was released. We've come a long way in 2 1/2
years. We've gone from about 10 million desktops to about 50 million. This
is still only 10% of the available market and the total market is still
growing at over 100 million desktops a year. If projections remain as they
currently are, we could do 100 million next year, at which point, the Linux
market growth rates will probably slow to 100%/year. A rough estimate would
be something like this. Total Licenses Shipped (millions) Year
Ending Linux Microsoft 12/1998 7 400 12/1999
17 500 12/2000 51 600 12/2001 150
720 12/2002 300 960 12/2003 600 1 billion.
12/2004 800 1.2 billion 12/2005 1billion 1.1
billion
Assuming that Microsoft doesn't completely blow itself up
they will still have a healthy 50% or more of the market
well into the middle of the decade.
> Linus may have made a call to take over the desktop in July 1998. I
> have no idea. However, at the time, we already were working on it (by
> we, I mean KDE and GNOME).
>
> KDE 1.0 was not released a year after july 1998, it was released ON
> july 1998. Ok, maybe THATīs why I didnīt get Linus calling ;-)
>
> KDE was started in october 14 or 16, 1996. THIS is when I recall the
> linux community starting serious effort to take over the desktop, with
> Matthias Ettrichīs call to write a few little apps and a WM because
> fvwm+xv+xemacs was not nice enough for her girlfriend.
>
> I know it sounds a little less glamorous than a call from Linus to take
> over the desktop, but it sure had a large effect.
>
> GNOME was started in July or august of 1997 (my reecollection is fuzzy)
> after (in his own words) KDE showed him building a consistent GUI for
> linux was possible (he didnīt believe it was).
>
> KDE 2.0 was not released one year after KDE 1.0. That was our plan, but
> things kinda grew complicated, and it took a lot longer, until october
> 23, 2000, almost exactly 4 years after KDEīs start.
>
> > Linux 2.4 will add some important features like USB support for
> cameras and
> > scanners, but people who really wanted those features could get them
> with 2.3
> > kernel patches months ago.
>
> Or 2.2.
>
> [snip some stuff which also seems a tad fishy, but I am not sure]
>
> > > KDE may share some concepts with Windows,
> >
> > KDE is a product of X11 Windows. Microsoft's Windows 3.0
> > and later were also dirivatives of X11. Microsoft had no
> > interest in remote access and eliminated X-Wire. They also
> > replaced the Xlib/Xserver with the DLLs. Since they didn't need
> > to serialize the messages, the events could simply be put onto
> > in-memory event queues.
>
> WHAT????? Windows 3.0 a derivative of X11? Where on earth did you get
> that idea?
>
> You know, if when you write about the things I know you make such
> mistakes, I have to wonder about what you write about things I ignore.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Steve Hix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:31:07 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unknown Poster wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > You must remember that in the Mac world the GUI is the Computer,
> > > therefore
> > > any ignorant Mac-ite troll won't realise the utter stupidity of that
> > > last
> > > remark and just what it says about them.
> > >
> > > Peter
> >
> > No, according to Larry Ellison, the Network is the computer...
>
> That was Sun's motto LONG before Ellison was in charge.
And Ellison *still* isn't in charge at Sun...
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum?
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:38:43 -0000
"KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does this forum actually have a useful or noble purpose to it?
Who cares about useful or noble? Ridiculing Bill's Shills is fun!
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
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 (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:49:31 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:58:11
>"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:32:06 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> |
>> |"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> |news:8LFh6.68$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> |> The point is .NET is nothing new.
>> |
>> |Multiple language common runtime? Please point me to a URL where
>> |I can see where this has been done in the past.
>>
>>
>> UCSD p-code was mainly ( almost completely ) Pascal, but there were other
>languages.
>> This is from the '70s/'80s, and I'm running from my own memory here.
>>
>> The P-Code Museum ( http://www.threedee.com/jcm/psystem/index.html ) mentions
>> other languages, but dosn't actually list any.
>
>All of these are stretches. Essentially, there's really no one that
>has done, or is doing what MS is doing with .NET. There have been
>some similar attempts, but not completely. A completely object-oriented
>language indifferent common platform-independant runtime is .NET.
You mean, a platform independent of any OS? Yes, that's been done.
What hasn't been done is linking it to an illegal OS monopoly in order
to make it a portable monopoly. That's revolutionary. Other than
that, .NET is network-aware middleware, just like Java. And support for
multiple languages in .NET is as putative as such support in Java.
So other than a Java clone, with lots of spin, what is .NET?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:39:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said MH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:01:31 -0500;
> >
> >"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )"
> >wrote in message news:961qov$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.
I've corresponded with him a few times, several years ago. I've also met him
once at a Linux Expo. I really doubt he'd remember me by name (like so many
of us, there are so many people you meet in a week and e-mail in a month that
it's a bit hard to keep the dance cards streight.
you might try www.perl.org
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
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 (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:53:34 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:32:06
[...typical Chad evasions...]
>> If they actually manage to come up with something that deserves
>> such hype then I'll be the first in line to stand corrected.
>
>Stand corrected.
What happened to:
>I may despise
>the company, but I'm not above giving kudos for good solutions. Taking MS's
>past performance into consideration, though, leads me to believe that kudos
>won't be necessary this time.
>
>>
>> > PS: It appears I've tread upon a sacred cow of yours. Sorry.
>>
>> Pet peeve, really. I'm sick and tired of you idiots belittling .NET
>> when you really have no clue AT ALL what you're talking about.
>> Perhaps you should read just a LITTLE and then attempt to talk
>> intelligently about it. Until then, please refrain from speaking
>> from your ass.
>
>Perhaps then, you would enlighten the class and tell us .NET is, Chad. I
>know that silly question has been asked of another recently. But, it does
>seem appropriate to ask it yet again. What are we missing from the equation?
>And, please, no web links - Just you. Marketing hype and spec sheets are as
>far removed from reality as one can get. What do YOU see. BTW, this is a
>serious question, not a troll.
>
>So far, COLA's resident .NET advocates have yet to actually sell it to the
>rest of us. Perhaps this is your opportunity to "win converts" as it were. I
>can't tell you why the others are resistant to the idea. They have their own
>reasons. Perhaps ignorance and nose tweaking are some's only motive.
>Personally, I've developed for MS platforms for nearly as long as MS has
>made platforms. I've listened to their promises and dealt with their
>cavalier attitude towards third party development (which, admittedly, has
>improved over the years..) I've dealt with inadequate and sometimes, wholly
>inaccurate, documentation. I've dealt with broken interfaces. I've dealt
>with server and desktop OS's that crap and die for no apparent reason. I'm
>now dealing with JET's mediocrity (Now, there's a rant in itself!). Can you
>tell me that Whistler and .NET are going to be any different?
>
>PS: I make it a habit to read about such things that I may have to, in
>future, support. The company I'm with has categorically refused to do so,
>but I have a tendency to sub-contract myself out. Any number of those other
>companies may require it.
It seems rather odd that you snipped this balance of Tom's statements,
without comment, eh, Chad?
Take a look at how the sock puppet tripped over his own dick again,
guys. ;-)
--
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 (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:53:36 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 11 Feb
[...]
>Soft links can specify absolute or relative pathnames, [...]
Wow! I did not know this. I always figured all soft links were
absolute, and never imagined that they might be able to point to a
relative path. Wouldn't that be a potential admin problem?
--
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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:53:37 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 11 Feb 2001
20:10:24 GMT;
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> Typically, you have descriptions that match the method name word
>> for word, i.e. sendFoo(int x, int y, bar b) "Sends a foo".
>> It doesn't explain what processes actually take place in sendFoo(),
>> nor does it explain what the arguments are for or why they are
>> needed. This type of poor documentation runs rampant in Sun's
>> own Java API documentation.
>>
>> MSDN is WAY better than that in just about every respect including
>> better serch capabilities, better organized API documentation,
>> better documented API documentation, TONS of samples for just
>> about every facet of the API whereas samples for Java are rare
>> if they exist at all. There's no comparison at all. Any attempt
>> to make one shows that you've never really looked at MSDN at all.
>
>Why do you guys argue with this Myers? At best, he's practicing
>his sophistry. More likely, he's trolling. He makes sweeping
>statements as if he'd had deep experience in what he's talking
>about. When pressed, the best he can do is make an ad hominem
>attack on the sender.
Yep, that's why. There's something about intellectually spanking such
an offensive and smug sock puppet that it is just irresistible. I can
see how it is basically trolling, and I myself have lamented the fact
that such morons are constantly disrupting more productive
conversations, but there's just no ignoring such a dishonest person when
he decides to waste everybody's time, short of shutting down Usenet
altogether.
>It quite often seems like he simply reverses some of the proper nouns
>(e.g. java.sun.com and MSDN), and then makes the same statement.
>The funny thing is, you can usually find a counter argument with
>little effort:
>
> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/guide/jvmpi/jvmpi.html#jvmpi_ids
>
>Just a sample, and I am not even familiar with java and their
>network of documentation.
>
>I guess its just how smug, smarmy, arrogant, and supercilious
>he sounds in his posts. One just itches to take him down.
"I lick's ya cuz I can, and cuz I wants, and cuz ya's the kind that
licken's good fer!" - Horatio Horneblower.
>But, remember, it is impossible to argue with an idiot, especially
>if he's good a couple of good points buried in his perorations.
>And it's impossible to argue in a newsgroup.
It is not impossible to argue in a newsgroup. Its just very improbably
for such an argument to have a conclusion in which one person becomes
convinced of the validity of the other's position. Still, it may be
rare, but its not unheard of. Not that anyone has any delusion that it
might happen in Chief Sock Puppet Chad's case.
--
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
******************************
