Linux-Advocacy Digest #177, Volume #32 Tue, 13 Feb 01 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: 10.8 Terabytes of storage for $50 (Bloody Viking)
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Interesting article (Dave Martel)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Bloody Viking)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Bloody Viking)
Re: Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone? (Zsolt Zsoldos)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: 10.8 Terabytes of storage for $50 (Nigel)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:06:56 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <9689ti$3uc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Everybody Attacking wrote:
> > >
> > IN this latest fleet of Wintroll attacks, It's amazing how closely
> > they follow the Microsoft negative Marketing Campaign.
> >
> > Just like in politics.
> >
> > But what do they plan on doing with Linux?
> > Bankrupting Linux maybe? Humm. You can't bankrupt Linux, it's not a
> > company. It's like a huge armored tank which can't even be defamed
> properly,
> > like a corporation could.
> >
> > Oh shure! You might actually get some distribution vendor to go away,
> > but you sure can't kill Linux base. That's what it takes to kill Linux.
> >
> > What are the three things which will be here for doomsday?
> >
> > Cockroaches, Cher, and Linux!
>
> And the other thing they have in common (well leave Cher out of it :-)? Due
> to the age of their genetic history, they will evolve at a slower and slower
> rate. More organized and opportunistic species have (and will) flourish and
> inhabit greater numbers of biospheres and in greater numbers. The UNIX and
> the cockroach will always survive but are doomed to the same station in the
> foodchain.
While Windows takes proudly place on the other side of the food chain:
the excrement side. Hard to get rid of too, but stinking a lot.
(Sorry Max, I couldn't resist)
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:11:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:21:41 GMT, "Mike Byrns"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:11:39 GMT, "Mike Byrns"
> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Linux implementations
> >>> >are by definition "amateur" as they are done as a pastime rather than as
> >>a
> >>> >profession.
> >>>
> >>> Then what's it say about MS's so-called "professional" programmers,
> >>> that these "amateur" linux programmers stole 30% of MS's Server
> >>> market? <chortle!>
> >>
> >>First of all it "says" nothing because it's patently untrue.
> >
> >Rubbish. I got the number from your own source (IDC).
> >
> He seems to be selective about what numbers he will accept from IDC.
>
> >>There are two
> >>server markets -- WWW and LAN/Applications. January 2001 Netcraft report
> >>says
> >
> >That's it, keep subdividing the issue until you can find some sliver
> >where MS actually shows some growth.
> >
> The Sock Puppets do that every time M$ hands them a new press
> release.
>
> I do not know yet if mike.byrns is one or not but he does show
> tendencies.
>
> >>This is particularly interesting since web serving was a completely UNIX
> >>market in the beginning. Microsoft was a latecomer to the party.
> >>Microsoft's only been playing the web game in earnest since IIS3.0
> >>introduced ASP in late 1997. See
> >>http://windowsitlibrary.com/Content/435/11/1.html. So if you really want to
> >>talk about who stole who's market I think you need to do your history
> >>homework :-)
> >
> >"Of course the increase was dramatic: It's easy to make big gains when
> >you're starting from scratch." ;->
> >
> Mike does it disturb you when your own mantra comes back to bite you ?
>
> >>If you dig a little deeper into the Netcraft site you'll find that most of
> >>the big names are running Apache on Solaris or IIS on NT/2000. As a
> >>platform/server combo Windows beats the pants off Apache on Linux.
> >
> >Actually I never noticed any Netcraft breakdowns by operating system,
> >though I can't imagine why they wouldn't have one. Do you have a URL?
> >
> They sell reports like that for hefty change. Its how they support
> themselves.
>
> Mike has good connections it seems.
>
> Of course he knows we have no chance to check whatever he says but
> remember how he quotes IDC selectively and ignores the number he
> doesn't like.
>
> >>On the LAN/Applications server front the truth is even more in contrast to
> >>your statements. NT usage has increased pretty steadily since it's
> >>introduction. Linux' gains have come principally at the expense of Netware
> >>and commercial Unices.
> >
> >It doesn't matter where the gains came from, that's still market share
> >that "written-by-amateurs" linux took and Microsoft didn't.
> >
> Good point Dave although I still think he is making that part about
> only being from Unix and Novell up.
>
> >>"First up is Linux, which International Data Corporation (IDC) says captured
> >>24 percent of the server market in 1999, a dramatic increase over the
> >>previous year. Of course the increase was dramatic: It's easy to make big
> >>gains when you're starting from scratch. Linux advocates note that the
> >>market share for NT remained steady at 38 percent last year, the first time
> >>its share didn't rise. But does that figure really represent a loss for
> >>Windows, or does it simply indicate market maturation?
> >
> >The server market wasn't "mature" if there was room for a competing OS
> >to expand to 24% while NT just sat there and stagnated for two years.
> >
> >>What Linux backers won't tell
> >>you is that IDC, which produced these figures, believes that Windows 2000
> >>(the next version of NT), not Linux, will dominate the server market by
> >>2003.
> >
> >Heck, NT dominated in 1999 (NT 38%, Linux 25%, Netware 19%, Unix 15%).
> >2003 is still too close for _any_ OS to overcome that kind of
> >head-start combined with MS's marketing clout. Try looking a little
> >farther down the road, say about 2005-2008.
> >
> That is not what the CEO of IBM said they told him:
>
> According to IDC, Linux is he fastest growing operating system at 28
> percent; Windows is at 21.4 percent. Linux will have 38 percent of the
> market by the year 2004 -- and will be the largest operating system in
> the server environment that year. And that is one of the reasons why
> IBM got behind Linux: these adoption rates were so impressive. They are
> a phenomenally powerful statement. It's growth is huge. Its momentum is
> building. Its like the Internet: it is moving that fast.
> Sam Palmisano IBM president and CEO at LinuxWorld 2001
> http://www.ibm.com/news/2001/02/conference_trans.phtml
>
> See what I mean about mike.byrns spouting numbers that do not seem to
> come from where he claims ?
>
To put it bluntly, Mike's numbers appear to come out from the wrong
orifice. (Wrong as far as numbers are concerned, I mean)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: 10.8 Terabytes of storage for $50
Date: 13 Feb 2001 23:13:48 GMT
Nick Condon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: So RAID-5 it. 10.8 terabytes the size of a pack of cards for $250.
At a (small) price premium. But that tiny premium is way more than worth it as
10 terabytes would be extremely valuable. At today's hard drive prices, RAID-5
packs would be EXTREMELY competitive. You could even affordably RAID-5-square
them compared to anything with hard drives. ("RAID-5-square" being to RAID-5
some RAID-5 packs)
Chances are, some kind of RAID type setup would be needed with the things
anyways, so as it hits the market, RAID packs with onboard RAID chipsets will
be standard, and if it's hooked to a normal hard drive fitting, you can RAID-5
square them with existing RAIDware. Also, no practical backup method is
available so RAID will have to be standard.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:19:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
[...]
>
> I wonder if Bill will be annoyed to be remembered as the last Robber
> Baron of the Twentieth Century ?
>
Good image! I love it!
> --
> How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
> - BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:18:01 -0700
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:39:57 GMT, "Mike Byrns"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:21:41 GMT, "Mike Byrns"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:11:39 GMT, "Mike Byrns"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Linux implementations
>> >> >are by definition "amateur" as they are done as a pastime rather than
>as
>> >a
>> >> >profession.
>> >>
>> >> Then what's it say about MS's so-called "professional" programmers,
>> >> that these "amateur" linux programmers stole 30% of MS's Server
>> >> market? <chortle!>
>> >
>> >First of all it "says" nothing because it's patently untrue.
>>
>> Rubbish. I got the number from your own source (IDC).
>
>Post the link then like I did.
<http://www.idc.com> and be sure to bring your credit-card. }:-)
>> >There are two
>> >server markets -- WWW and LAN/Applications. January 2001 Netcraft report
>> >says
>>
>> That's it, keep subdividing the issue until you can find some sliver
>> where MS actually shows some growth.
>
>I've shown growth in each market and I've posted proof. Where's your proof?
No, you've shown meager MS growth in the web-server market, and failed
to prove anything in the LAN/Applications market.
>> >This is particularly interesting since web serving was a completely UNIX
>> >market in the beginning. Microsoft was a latecomer to the party.
>> >Microsoft's only been playing the web game in earnest since IIS3.0
>> >introduced ASP in late 1997. See
>> >http://windowsitlibrary.com/Content/435/11/1.html. So if you really want
>to
>> >talk about who stole who's market I think you need to do your history
>> >homework :-)
>>
>> "Of course the increase was dramatic: It's easy to make big gains when
>> you're starting from scratch." ;->
>>
>> >If you dig a little deeper into the Netcraft site you'll find that most
>of
>> >the big names are running Apache on Solaris or IIS on NT/2000. As a
>> >platform/server combo Windows beats the pants off Apache on Linux.
>>
>> Actually I never noticed any Netcraft breakdowns by operating system,
>> though I can't imagine why they wouldn't have one. Do you have a URL?
>
>Go to http://www.1000hot.com take the tops sites and input URL to
>http://uptime.netcraft.com/.
I seriously doubt that you entered all 1000 websites one URL at a time
and compiled the results to arrive at your claim that "most of the big
names are running Apache on Solaris or IIS on NT/2000". Surely you
have a more valid basis for that conclusion?
>> >On the LAN/Applications server front the truth is even more in contrast
>to
>> >your statements. NT usage has increased pretty steadily since it's
>> >introduction. Linux' gains have come principally at the expense of
>Netware
>> >and commercial Unices.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where the gains came from, that's still market share
>> that "written-by-amateurs" linux took and Microsoft didn't.
>
>Not from Microsoft it didn't. It can only take from Microsoft that which is
>Microsoft's.
You have a real problem understanding basic business principles. If
linux takes from somebody else what Microsoft wanted to take from them
for itself, then in business terms linux has taken that share from
Microsoft as well as the original owner. If you doubt that Bill Gates
wanted the part of the market that linux grabbed, just go read MS's
old ads and press releases pushing NT4 as a cheaper alternative to the
very same server OS's that linux displaced.
Or, you can keep amusing us by trying to convince us that it was in
Microsoft's plans for their flagship networking OS to stagnate for two
years in a row in the server market!
>> >"First up is Linux, which International Data Corporation (IDC) says
>captured
>> >24 percent of the server market in 1999, a dramatic increase over the
>> >previous year. Of course the increase was dramatic: It's easy to make big
>> >gains when you're starting from scratch. Linux advocates note that the
>> >market share for NT remained steady at 38 percent last year, the first
>time
>> >its share didn't rise. But does that figure really represent a loss for
>> >Windows, or does it simply indicate market maturation?
>>
>> The server market wasn't "mature" if there was room for a competing OS
>> to expand to 24% while NT just sat there and stagnated for two years.
>
>Sure it was. People like you who don't like Microsoft shed their Netware
>for linux.
You _really_ need to take a business course.
>> >What Linux backers won't tell
>> >you is that IDC, which produced these figures, believes that Windows 2000
>> >(the next version of NT), not Linux, will dominate the server market by
>> >2003.
>>
>> Heck, NT dominated in 1999 (NT 38%, Linux 25%, Netware 19%, Unix 15%).
>> 2003 is still too close for _any_ OS to overcome that kind of
>> head-start combined with MS's marketing clout. Try looking a little
>> farther down the road, say about 2005-2008.
>
>Yah, OK. I can see this being repeated then too when Windows whatever is
>the next being thing from Microsoft.
Ok, since you're too lazy to do your own websearches:
<http://www.maccentral.com/news/0007/27.server.shtml>
"Server report: Linux outpaces Windows and Mac by 2004"
Note that the statistics quoted in the article come from your own
source, IDC.
BTW if you don't want to pay $4500 for my earlier 30% number you can
work out something like 35%-38% by the end of year 2000 from the IDC
growth figures quoted on this page and the IDC results quoted on
<http://www.linux-mag.com/2000-05/report_01.html>.
>Linux lacks many things right now and
>if the 2.4 kernel development stagnation is any example new development will
>come slower and slower...
Doing the job right, no matter how long it takes, is why linux is so
stable.
Desperately rushing to meet marketing deadlines is why Windows isn't.
>> >> >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.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> *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. 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.
>> >
>>
>> No matter how much you quibble, you can't possibly win the stability
>> issue. Linux is legendary in that department.
>
>It's a legend in your own minds.
Oh, and what versions of linux have you used, and for how long? <LOL>
>Applications still crash it and you said
>"*REAL* OS's aren't brought to their knees by an applications programmer's
>ineptitude.". By your own definition, linux is not a real OS. So are you
>wrong or are you wrong?
Sorry, I'm used to hanging out with brighter people. ALL software has
bugs, and there's no such thing as an unhackable or uncrashable system
so I just automatically expected you to know I was making a general
statement. And you're still quibbling, and linux's stability is still
legendary and well-documented and Windows still
crashes-crashes-crashes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: 13 Feb 2001 23:27:21 GMT
J Sloan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Hey, I like Slack - don't get me wrong.
: But for the business people, I have go with Red Hat, due
: to commercial apps and vendor support etc.
: I'd hate to see Slackware ever go away.
There's other distros for specialised markets like Caldera being another
business distro. Since Linux is a segmented market, there will surely be
several distros to choose from, and a group will be around to do Slackware
distros.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: 13 Feb 2001 23:33:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I guess the massive layoffs which are occuring all over the
: tech world in the united states right now ALL have to do with
: linux not delivering on the hype.
The debacle is from an under-regulated stock market with too many speculators
and hucksters. Also, Y2K fizzled, so the Y2K techies get downsized, so the
real Y2K failure was the techie job market.
If you REALLY want hype and a non-delivering product, look at any Windows
release.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Zsolt Zsoldos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:34:13 GMT
Karl Misselt wrote:
>
[SNIP]
> me off of getting that package. However, I was wondering if anyone
> knows what one loses by getting the free download package or odering
> the 'free' cd's from cheapbytes.com. It appears as the compilers
> and libraries are included in the download version. But what elements
> of the distro (ie. powerpack package) are missing? I'm leaning towards
Their web page says "The Download Edition is the equivalent to the first
2 CDs of the PowerPack Deluxe". If this is true, then downloading or
ordering from cheapbytes seems a safe option. That's what I did for 7.1
and it worked fine with all compilers and server tools included (telnet,
ftp, nfs etc). What you get in extra in the deluxe powerpack is additional
contributed applications, source files, books in online format and a bunch
of commercial software, e.g. CodeForge (IDE). You can find the list of the
applications on their web site:
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/72/index.php3?cd=com&s=72pwp4
> c/c++/fortran compilers at the minimum. My basic question with
> distros boils down to: Do all the free download versions contain
> compilers and working libraries and what would one gain by spending
> $70 on the powerpack 7.2 distro of mandrake?
What you gain are those listed commercial software packages and some books in
electronic version (Linux Hardware Handbook, Practical Linux, Linux in 24 hours,
GIMP in 24 hours).
--
Zsolt Zsoldos, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simbiosys.ca/
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:35:31 -0500
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > Edward Rosten wrote:
> >
> > > Read the question. It says how do you print a PS file to a PS printer.
> > > Answer: resort to command line commmands. No happypointyclicky intertface
> > > there.
> > >
> > > Oh, and All Distros i know automatically set up GS on the print filters
> > > to turn non-ps printers in to PS ones.
> >
> > Sorry, missed the postscript file bit.
> >
> > There is an application that lets you dump files raw to printers. It's a
> > GUI application that supports drag and drop.
> >
>
> If you are referring to GhostScript, fine.
> But bear in mind that GS is a port of a *nix application (works like a
> dream in OS/2 as well) and, although it was not designed as such,
> functions effectively as a patch for Windows' short-sighted printer
> setup philosophy.
>
> I'm beginning to see a pattern (bear in mind that I am not the world's
> fastest thinker!): Everything the Windows fans are getting warm and
> fuzzy feelings about turns out to be stuff that is aimed at what I can
> only describe as computer illiterates (you know, the kind that thinks
> that "the desktop is the computer" and that clicking on icons is the
> modern day equivalent of assembler programming).
Why else would they be LoseDOS fans.
>
> Linux people tend to go doe-eyed over stuff that gives *them* control
> over their computer.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Karel Jansens
> ==============================
> "Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
> ==============================
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:41:37 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:58:19 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>There was, is, and always will be a strong Unix contingent just
> >>because Unix admins are blockheads and refuse to use whatever's
> >>best, only Unix.
> >
> >LOL! Right. It's got NOTHING to do with it being the best tool for
> >the job...
> >
>
> NT is the best tool for the job, always. It's just that not everyone
> has been brainwashed .... erm, I mean, informed ... of this yet. :-)
>
The problem is also that they have missed to inform quite a number of
jobs, too, on what's the best tool for them. That's why such a number of
unaware jobs persistently crash, due to their ignorance and
misinformation. But .NET will cure that. With jobs which crash informed.
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10.8 Terabytes of storage for $50
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:46:11 +0000
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > http://www.slashdot.com
> >
> > This just posted. They've profected a 10.8 terabyte
> > storage device the size of a credit card for $50.
> > It's faster than any drive man has ever made.
> >
> > WHOOM! There went the world.
> >
>
> Only as long as the power stays up.
> Unlike a disk drive, it's NOT persistant memory.
>
Shame as I was hoping this would finally provide me with enough storage to
do a full install of whistler ;-)
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:49:53 -0500
Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> In article <BR7i6.983$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
> Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip some stuff>
> >> So apologies for the first (slightly incorrect) post, but I
> >> still stand by my original contention, that MS licensing
> >> practices *effectively* prohibit OEMs from shipping anything
> >> but windows. Now you give me a link to prove that it isn't so.
> >
> > So far your only evidence is the IBM situation, which had
> > extenuating circumstances related to IBM violating their
> > license with Windows 3.1 due to non-payment. All IBM had to do
> > was pay their bill and MS wouldn't have had any ground to offer
> > a settlement.
> >
> Ok Erik,
>
> Glad you accepted my apologies. I am doubly glad that you
> concede my point that in *at least* one case MS used their
> licensing to pressure OEMs.
Actually, it's been their standard practice since 1985.
> I'll make you a deal: find me a case where MS didn't abuse that
> power to stop an OEM from shipping an alternative to Windows,
> and I'll go hunting for supporting evidence to my claim. Despite
> some hot-headed reaction on my side, and some extenuating
> circumstances on your side of the argument, the score is still
> (by your own admission) 1-0 in my favour.
> The ball's in your court, Erik.
>
> Mart
> --
> Happily running Debian, posting with Pan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
