Linux-Advocacy Digest #143, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Feb 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Wintrolls (Ray Chason)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Interesting article ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NTFS Limitations ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Answer this if you can... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:54:03 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:51:19
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>
>> If you use the wrong driver under Windows, you get garbage out. Simple.
>> Try installing Adobe's PostScript printer dirver and printing to your
>> Eposn Stylus under Windows. You'll get garbage out.
>
>Yes, I agree.
>
>However, on Linux, I installed the Epson driver. Using Konqueror I printed
>the file with no trouble. With The Gimp, which doesn't use the same model
>as other packages, I get Postscript by default.
It uses exactly the same 'model', Pete. It didn't have the same default
configuration, because, being a graphics program with demanding
requirements, it defaulted to a raw mode, which you neglected to notice
when you clicked on the OK button in the print dialog like a mindless
Windows idiot.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:54:04 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:54:31
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> You show your intellectual dishonesty again, Pete, by misconstruing the
>> question so pointedly. Did you select the correct printer? What was it
>> called?
>
>I'm not lying.
>
>There's one queue.
And did the queue have the correct configuration?
>When I configured Linux Mandrake, I selected the Epson driver. I then
>printed a test page (which had graphics) and it worked.
>
>> We don't care. Your reasons are your own; I can think of a couple
>> reasons I'd want to do so, but that's beside the point.
>
>I think I'll engrave that on Linux's epitath.
>
>"WE DON'T CARE"
About what? Did I suggest it was because I advocate Linux, rather than
that you're a pathetic passive aggressive idiot, that we don't care?
Why should we care what a moron lies about?
>> Presuming you only print to one printer, and have no reason to have
>> multiple configurations for it, the question remains; was the correct
>> printer selected in the very Windows-like dialog box?
>
>If it printed a test page, then the answer is "yes".
No, you didn't print the test page from the application. The dialog box
would be in the Gimp, and the answer is "no". Putz.
--
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]>
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 07:54:05 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001
[...]
>> Satisfied? Really Erik, you should think twice before challenging
>> someone.
>
>Not even close. All you've mentioned was the Initial boot sequence. This
>is what happens *AFTER* windows has started loading, not before it. Adding
>a dual boot would not interfere with the windows boot sequence as defined by
>MS.
That a lie; the 'initial boot sequence' of Windows disables any
dual-boot configuration set up by the OEM, purposefully.
>You should understand what you're quoting before you jump to conclusions on
>it.
You should stop being a Microsoft sock puppet and disrupting discussions
about Linux with your silliness.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:54:06 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:43:42
>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>
That's right, I forgot Erik lies about this. This was a real hot topic
at the sock puppet briefing, I'm sure. I recall when it happened and he
first starting posting this lie, I posted a number of reasons to believe
that the actual settlement was well over half a billion dollars, with
the 155 million at the time just being a down-payment. The imaginary 15
million number (Erik's "less than 1%") was the official lie on the
PowerPoint slide the head sock puppet had with him at that meeting, I'd
bet, as it was never ascribed to anything but dubious speculation, yet
it was repeated several times.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:54:08 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001
[...]
>It's all speculation. The $155 million is speculation, but it at least has
>some facts behind it. The $100 million additional is speculation without
>fact, and is thus not even close to being useable.
A speculation is usable when its reasonable, not when its a fact. Its
not a speculation when its a fact.
>Whatever the case, if Caldera truly believed they could win, they wouldn't
>have settled for such a paltry sum.
If Microsoft had even a shred of hope of winning, they wouldn't have
settled.
>Caldera bought DR-DOS for the sole
>purpose of sueing MS and getting rich off it. I doubt $155 million even
>covers all their legal fees, the cost of buying DR-DOS, and maintaining it
>for all these years.
Ray Noorda built Caldera to buy DR-DOS and sue MS to try to prevent
their assault on the free market from continuing. It was obviously an
act of personal vengeance for Microsoft's destruction of Novell's
market. Unfortunately, Caldera wasn't Noorda's private property, and
the officers of the corporation felt the stock-holders would prefer to
make money rather than to stand up for principle. It wasn't like DR-DOS
itself was somehow going to rise from the grave.
>> > Prolonged legal fees would have been much more than what
>> > they paid.
>>
>> Really? Must be some pricey lawyers to cost $155 million. Perhaps they
>> could have used those against the DOJ.
>
>MS has hundreds of lawyers working on these cases.
And still they lose and settle with stipulations of silence, over and
over.
>> > I think Caldera just wanted to get their money back that they
>> > put into the lawsuit.
>>
>> Must be more really expensive lawyers. But it seems more likely that
>> the settlement looked to be at least as good as what the court would
>> have awarded.
>
>If they had won, they would have gotten quite a bit more, PLUS their legal
>fees.
They probably did get quite a bit more. The settlement was secret, so
obviously it was more than what was necessarily public knowledge.
>> > 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.
>>
>> And MS agreeing not to use the "Java" brand.
>
>Something they hadn't been doing for the last 3 years.
>
>MS was already prevented from using it, such a settlement didn't add
>anything new.
Like they would have been prevented had they won?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:54:55 -0000
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But.. but.. All you linux people said that there is no reason to recompile
>your kernels, so why would this knowledge be "common" and "one of the first
>things you learn" if you don't need to ever do it?
Some reasons you might wish to recompile your kernel:
* to set its processor optimization for your specific CPU;
* to remove unneeded drivers, or spin them off as modules;
* to reinstate such drivers after a previous recompile, should they
again become necessary;
* to upgrade to a new kernel version, or apply a patch.
Any others?
--
--------------===============<[ 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 08:02:21 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 06:08:14
[...]
>Some of the ideas behind .NET are quite promising on paper and I stress on
>paper.
But that's the point. Talk is cheap, and vapor is even cheaper, since
if you don't care about obeying the law, you can turn a profit on it.
Microsoft's monopoly is writing checks the market can't cash, and I
think its doing just as much damage as the actual theft of capital which
Microsoft's monopoly prices exact.
>The company that put it on paper has a nasty habit of screwing up an
>implementation. Also, when you take into account their disdain for non-MS
>platforms, you can take the cross-platform stuff with a grain of salt.
>Anyway, they can barely manage, historically, to run on their primary
>platform..
But the argument is not whether the idea has merit, but whether .NET has
merit. Observing that some descriptions of certain parts of .NET
resemble good ideas is just fueling the FUD.
>People who stand behind this organization and their products, after dealing
>with them from the beginning, amaze me. There are only a few of these folks
>around, thankfully. Most of what you hear comes from those who were weened
>on Windows and don't have a clue about pre-MS computing.
They're sock puppets. They've made their money in the MS world, and are
terrified they would be incapable of doing so in a non-MS world. Plus,
their money is still tied to MS, generally, which re-enforces their
fear. Like Gates and Palmer, they watch their stock value shrink, and
they think of Linux, and they'll say or try to believe anything to avoid
confronting the reality that Windows is doomed.
They ought to be taking satisfaction in the fact that Windows will not
die a brief, absolute death, as it would if MS were simply prevented
from selling it. There is still some chance, however slight, that the
corporate officers and managers will be able to salvage some nascent
technical ability, and Windows could radically change enough in a
competitive market that it might one day not be the piece of crap it is
today. But that's way too much of a stretch for most people; even
people who aren't sock puppets find it extremely difficult to consider
any perspective but their own. The studious focus on their own
perspective and delusions is necessary, though, for sock puppets,
because it is necessary for them to be able to believe lies provided at
the briefings without question and present them with undue sincerity to
others.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:08:10 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Mike Byrns in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:11:39
> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Give me a break. You can't honestly sit there and tell me they're
> >> > just "calling it as they see it". It's not professional at all,
> >> > let alone tasteful. It's like a bunch of high-school adolescents
wrote
> >> > the documentation. Not unlike the code, though. I guess it all makes
> >> > sense.
> >>
> >> If you mean the code they're commenting, you're right. Adolescent style
> >> code deserves adolescent-style irony. You can't discuss Microsoft
> >> implementation as if it were a professional thing. It isn't.
> >
> >First, we can discuss Microsoft implementations any way we se fit -- you
and
> >the rest of the Linux loonies have no say in what we do at all.
>
> And you accuse some volunteer who writes a HOWTO of being adolescent?
> What irony.
I do no such thing. We were talking about comments in code made by
adolescent seeming linux "programmers" that seem to think that bashing a
fine MS implemetation of TCP/IP is worthwhile. I opine that your entire
existance is not worthwhile, based on all your inane rhetoric.
> >Commenting
> >code with "adolescent ironies" is decidedly poor coding practice --
perhaps
> >they could have diverted those energies towards documenting their code
> >rather than commenting on completely unrelated code that they've never
even
> >seen before.
>
> Well, I know Giuliano is far too polite to say it, so I'll point out
> that you're full of shit. If you had the ability to comment on the
> persons code, then you can do so. Your consideration of the value of
> validity of his comments, regardless, is really along the lines of "you
> and the rest of the Microsoft loonies have no say in what we do at all."
The shit is in you bud. Neither you nor him have ever even SEEN the MS
code. I HAVE seen the linux code. I can comment all I want. :-)
> >Microsoft's implementations are by definition
> >"professional" -- that's what they do for a living. Linux
implementations
> >are by definition "amateur" as they are done as a pastime rather than as
a
> >profession. There are maybe a hundred or so folks that actually get paid
to
> >code linux (the kernel) and all the varied programs included in all the
> >distros combined. Hell, Torvalds doesn't even get paid to do the
kernel --
> >he gets paid to write microcode for the Transmeta chips and to write the
> >currently CLOSED SOURCE Mobile Linux.
>
> And yet Linux is decidedly kicking Microsoft's ass;
Post some proof to this and I will consider you less of a loser.
> when the government
> finally ends their illegal behavior, they're really going to be up
> against a wall. Right now they're just really scared, and it is pretty
> cool to watch. ;-)
Perhaps they, not you, define legality? I don't think that the USGov is
"scared" in any way. Triffled yes.
> >> Well if you're so proud of MSDN superb documentation, can you point me
> >> where it is clearly specified that a scrolling window
> >> will fill up until all available memory has been used and then freeze
> >> the system (making even the Task Manager unavailable) if you attempt to
> >> scroll it?
> >
> >Scrolling window? Using those terms precisely would yeild a window with
a
> >scrollbar (perhaps two!) and no innate ability to have any content other
> >than what can be drawn on it's device context. It's up to your
> >implementation to draw the particular segment of your content as
appropriate
> >for the position of the scrollbar thumb and window size. If you could
> >"until all available memory has been used" then you are doing two things
> >wrong -- you've turned off virtual memory and your implementation caches
> >everything in memory regardless of it's size instead of implementing a
spool
> >or diff file or using memory mapped files. Perhaps a call to
> >GlobalMemoryStatusEx could be used to determine the right amount of cache
> >:-) You also didn't specify what OS this is either, nor what allocation
> >mechanism your implementation is using -- new/delete, malloc/free or the
> >heap functions. In fact you've said nothing to make anyone who has done
any
> >serious Windows programming believe a word you've said let alone be able
to
> >blame the OS for your ineptitude.
>
> Actually, I believe he was referring to a specific problem he had with
> Microsoft's code. <*smirk*>
Neither he nor you have established that blame. From my engineering
experience that I've posted above it's not MS code -- it's their code.
------------------------------
From: [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 08:15:11 GMT
In article <HcLh6.114728$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>How could I forget? I never knew :-) I came into this to rebut your
>assertions that Microsoft implementations are not "professional". I've
>established that they are by definition.
>
"Professional" does not mean "better quality."
A "professional" paints your house, an "amateur" painted the Cistine
Chapel.
--
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: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:15:12 GMT
In article <vgLh6.1340$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:967rqn$j9f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Nor is it actually nessesary. If microsoft (and sun for that matter)
>> had a brain in their heads at all, they would remove the runtime layer
>> (which causes nothing but instability and bloated slowness) and introduce
>> a "compile-time", one-time abstraction mechanism.
>>
>> In this way, one could grab a .NET application, and apon running it for
>> the first time, have it compiled into a platform specific binary with
>> a nice microsoft compilation package (included with .NET of course).
>> This way, microsoft would only have to worry about developing a platform-
>> specific compiler, rather than a platform specific runtime environment,
>> which by historical guide is much, much easier.
>>
>> This would grant speed, stability, and above all INNOVATION to the
>> product.
>>
>> One could only hope.
>
>That WOULD be quite nice. I'd sure hate to be the one to try and implement
>such a thing though.
>
But that would mean that software written ten years before would
compile and run on new computers.
People would not be forced to buy newer software. They could only
be coaxed when the new functionality was worth more to them than the
cost of the new software.
Entice customers with good, valuable software ? Microsoft !?
What alternate reality are you from and how did you get here ?
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: 12 Feb 2001 08:18:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 Feb 2001 12:45:09
>>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Jan Johanson wrote:
>>>
>>> > He did not write well. He just made some crap up and spued it forth for
>>> > those that are so vehmonently anti-MS that they'll believe ANYTHING that
>>> > paints windows is a bad light. there is not a single shred of truth in his
>>> > enitre article.
>>>
>>> The rage and confusion within the windows religion
>>> is telling at times like this. "How dare these heretics
>>> question the perfection of our beloved windows 2k?"
>>>
>>> They love to talk about "linux bigots", but see how they
>>> riot when someone dares admit that windows is not
>>> perfect?
>>
>>You are very far off the mark. I would never claim any OS was perfect.
>>Never.
> OK, so the discussion is to be on rational grounds, then.
OpenStep 4.2 was perfect. :)
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:22:09 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:58:46 GMT, imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete
> Goodwin) wrote:
>
>
> >Cut and paste are there, if you know how to use it. I remembered it
vaguely
> >from my time with X Windows on OpenVMS.
>
> Not consistant between applications. Try using a combination of menues
> and the mouse with Netscape and kedit and see what happens.
>
>
> >That's why Whistler is going to have a product activation key, requiring
> >you to register your installation and get the key to get Windows up and
> >running. You can't move this to another machine without getting another
key
> >(and do you pay for that, I wonder?).
>
> That may very well be their (MS) downfall.
> If that turns out to be a reality, I will switch to Mac.
I honestly believe they can't be that stupid.
------------------------------
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 08:23:48 GMT
Said Mike Byrns in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:21:41
[...]
>> *REAL* OS's aren't brought to their knees by an applications
>> programmer's ineptitude.
>
>Then there aren't any real OSs. Everything from funky floppies
>http://security-archive.merton.ox.ac.uk/bugtraq-199803/0182.html to ldap
>application software
>http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200008/msg00306.html can
>crash linux.
"Can" is not the issue; nobody pretends any software is infallible.
That's not the same as pretending that Windows isn't notably pathetic in
this regard.
>My favorite "user app crashes kernel" story is
>http://cthulhu.ale.org/ale-archive/ale-1996-08/msg00139.html and how linux
>crashes when it runs out of RAM
>http://thaigate.rd.nacsis.ac.jp/list/th.pubnet.linux/msg11240.html.
A random fool with a problem with Netscape (probably crashing X), and a
script kiddie doing silly things with "copy-on-write" in perl, and you
think this means Windows stacks up against real OSes? How pathetic.
--
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
******************************
