Linux-Advocacy Digest #400, Volume #32 Thu, 22 Feb 01 08:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: How much do you *NEED*? ("Adam Warner")
Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft (Nick
Condon)
IBM Withdraws CPRM Hard Disk Proposal ("Adam Warner")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Nick Condon)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Nick Condon)
Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (meow)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (meow)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Bloody
Viking)
Re: Into the abyss... (Bloody Viking)
Re: Into the abyss... (Bloody Viking)
Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source ("Adam Warner")
Re: Adam Warner is a fucking idiot! (Bloody Viking)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Peter Hayes)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Shane Phelps)
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft ("Joseph T.
Adams")
Re: Help with display properties ("John")
Spam by proxy (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source (Peter Hayes)
Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one. (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:48:14 -0000
In article <96rjdv$rju$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I have. Yet another example of Pete Goodwin pretending that his system
> is broken when the problem is nothing more than ( intentional )
> operator error. It's not the fault of the OS or the application that
> you refuse to select your printer from the dialogue menu and then save
> that selection.
You haven't been paying attention. As I said before, I configured my
system on installation to use a specific printer driver. Then I printed a
test page and it work. When I tried to use The Gimp, it ignored this, and
sent postscript directly to the printer.
So, how am I pretending my system is broken - The Gimp made the wrong
assumption!
--
---
Pete Goodwin
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How much do you *NEED*?
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:02:26 +1300
Hi Donn,
> The fact is that there isn't an OS out there that can't be crashed by
> bad drivers. It's just that we unix people don't use it as a primary
> excuse for instability like the Windows homies..
My take on this: because so many more drivers are part of the kernels the
open source communities take responsibility for the reliability of the
drivers.
Microsoft absolves itself of responsibility whenever possible by labelling
something a third party driver issue. And many third parties have to write
their drivers blind (without being able to view the source code). And
there is no opportunity to integrate their drivers into the kernel (unlike
how drivers can be statically compiled into the Linux/*BSD kernels).
All this undermines the original stability of the operating system.
When my Win2k OS blue screened upon booting (this is incredibly serious)
just because I installed Windows Media Player 7 it was caused by Microsoft
shipping an Adaptec driver that took out any computer with Adaptec EasyCD
3.5 installed:
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=19425
"Like many people, however, I wish I knew about this before completely
hosing my system."
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft
Date: 22 Feb 2001 10:04:31 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>Nick Condon wrote:
>> Are going for some sort of record for how many threads you can introduce
>> gun control to?
>
>Sure, why not.
I know you're not reknowned for your grasp of netiquette, but aren't you a
little off-topic? Do you start "Bill Gates sucks" threrads on
talk.politics.guns?
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IBM Withdraws CPRM Hard Disk Proposal
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:23:28 +1300
Thank goodness:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/17107.html
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 22 Feb 2001 10:25:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Nick Condon wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donald R. McGregor) wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >In article <96ucn0$qgm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >>>> >> I can't say I follow UK politics too well, but I doubt that's
>> >>>> >> the problem. The problem is that a government typically
>> >>>> >> operates at or slightly beyond the legal limits of its
>> >>>> >> authority. With no full equivalent of the US Constitution to
>> >>>> >> restrict its powers, the UK government can get away with more,
>> >>>> >> and does.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> No. We live in a democracy and we are free to not have guns if we
>> >>>> wish.
>> >
>> >This returns to the idea of a written constitution with enumerated
>> >rights that are not subject to simple majority rule.
>>
>> Even written constitutions are capable of amendment. An amendment to
>> this hypothetical written UK constitution would easily gain enough
>> support to be passed. Any attempt to introduce Prohibition, however,
>> would be doomed to failure. Your written constitution didn't help you
>> there, did it?
>>
>> Your faith in a written constitution is misplaced. The former Soviet
>> Union had one of the most extensive Bills of Rights ever written and
>> look how far it got them. The separation of powers is a far more
>> important principle, IMO.
>
>The more precisely an individuals rights are defined, the easier
>it is to sidestep those rights and oppress the populace.
>
>The US Constitution works so well precisely because the Bill of Rights
>is written in very broad terms.
No, it works as well as it does because it has strong independent Supreme
Court, which is prepared to over-rule the legislature, which the Soviets
lacked - i.e. separation of powers.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 22 Feb 2001 10:27:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Rosten) wrote in <972j0q$jm6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> LOL! Robin Hood was a common thief.
>>
>> No...that was the TAX COLLECTOR.
>>
>> Robin Hood merely returned to the people what was wrongfully stolen from
>> them by Little John's tax collectors.
>
>Robin Hood was a common thief turned in to a legend.
>
>Little John was one of the Merry Men according to that legend. Are you
>refering to she Sherrif of Nittingham?
I think he's referring to Prince John, a little snake in the Disney
version.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: meow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:06:52 GMT
I've been coming up with some anagrams of Aaron Kulkis name and i
thought id share them with you
Aaron Kulis = Miserable piece of shit
Aaron Kulis = Toss Pot
Aaron Kulis = Argumentitive fuck wit
Aaron Kulis = Arrogant wank stain
Aaron Kulis = Numb nuts
thats all i have so far
I think there surely must be some more
Anyone got any others?
Meow
------------------------------
From: meow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:11:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I've been coming up with some anagrams of Aaron Kulkis name and i
> thought id share them with you
>
> Aaron Kulis = Miserable piece of shit
> Aaron Kulis = Toss Pot
> Aaron Kulis = Argumentitive fuck wit
> Aaron Kulis = Arrogant wank stain
> Aaron Kulis = Numb nuts
>
> thats all i have so far
> I think there surely must be some more
> Anyone got any others?
>
> Meow
>
Heres another..
Aaron Kulis = Professional Bullshitter
Meow
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: 22 Feb 2001 11:14:41 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: [2] Linux itself isn't likely to dominate the desktop. At some level,
There is something that could: GNU FreeDOS. Check out http://www.freedos.org
about this OS. Works with a bunch of old DOSware, and there is work on a GNU
Windows to match. A port of WINE?
I'm going to have to investigate FreeDOS for Loadlin for Linux to finally
become MS-free.
--
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: Into the abyss...
Date: 22 Feb 2001 11:18:37 GMT
Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: BSD is UNIX.
And... GNU's not UNIX! (: (but is close enough)
--
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: Into the abyss...
Date: 22 Feb 2001 11:24:56 GMT
Nigel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: The usual label seems to be UN*X - close enough for anyone to know what you
: mean but different enough to avoid trademark problems (although UN?X would
: be more correct).
And with all the clones of UNIX, that word could get like "Band-Aid", a
trademark that has entered the language as a generic word for the thing it
describes.
--
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: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:33:01 +1300
Hi Mr T.,
A thoughtful set of comments, thanks.
> In fact, it is impossible to take over free software with the GPL;
Now we know the GPL is very well designed. But impossible might be
stretching it a bit :-) We'll have to wait to see whether history proves
you right.
>>I found it amusing that Microsoft representatives still couldn't stop
>>themselves from spouting nonsense. We are now supposed to believe that
>>the GPL will constrain innovation stemming from taxpayer funded software
>>development.
>
> In fact, it does. But far less than Microsoft. In the current
> environment, a software author (and even a software producer) who wishes
> to earn a living has a choice to keep his code secret or to leave it
> open. Any non-GPL open license, unfortunately, leaves the code open to
> becoming a secret, if you know what I mean. But to GPL the code
> sacrifices any hope of commercially benefiting from the code, in
> perpetuity, which may be more than some authors (and all producers)
> might be willing to accept.
In certain circumstances I could imagine the GPL would be the appropriate
choice of license for government funded development. For example research
may be conducted into a new communication *standard*. For that standard to
remain open everyone needs the ability to implement any popular extensions of
the standard.
In other cases a licence with more freedom might be appropriate. Or a
proprietary-style licence might be appropriate if the government wants to
confine benefits of the research to its own country or a subsection of
people/businesses.
> Once the GPL has done its job, however, of destroying secret code, there
> will be no need to GPL software
If this is your vision of the future then there will be hardly anything
except GPLed code left! Imagine the power of version 5 of the Linux
kernel. You wouldn't want to try to rewrite that from scratch using
no GPLed code.
<snip>
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Adam Warner is a fucking idiot!
Date: 22 Feb 2001 11:38:51 GMT
Donn Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Yeah, really. Why do so many people think one party is god-like but the
: other is scum? The best we can do is judge a politician on his
: individual merits, bearing in mind the sleazy business politics is. I'm
: pretty much fed up with the lot of them at the moment.
Probably becuse the GOP scum wrap themselves with religion, and the same type
of sheep mentality that powers Windows also powers religion. It may be that
Bill Gates IS the antichrist, and ripped off the source for the human brain's
OS. After all, the average human has a 16 hour uptime with an 8 hour defrag
and reboot.
If a person is prevented from getting ANY sleep, they eventually go crazy then
later die. Sounds like certain serverware, eh? Must be the memory leaks that
cause the problem...
--
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: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:51:48 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:08:33 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > The recent laws in the UK were brought in as a result of Dunblane. If they
> > have resulted in fewer loner nutters like Hamilton getting guns then they
> > have succeeded in their purpose.
>
> But at the cost of how many OTHERS killed in "hot burglaries" (where the
> residents are home), and gang-members shooting randomly in public,
> because they *KNOW* that law-abiding citizens have disarmed themselves.
"Hot burglaries" involving guns are **extremely** rare here, such that
they are headlines on the nightly news.
Gang-members shooting randomly in public are also extremely rare. In any
event, even pre Dunblane 99.9999% of law-abiding citizens wouldn't be
carrying guns anyway.
I repeat. What - hopefully - the legislation *HAS* done is to stop nutters
like Hamilton.
> > Criminals will get guns whatever legislation you put in place - they're
>
> And this helps the law-abiding populace how, exactly?
Doesn't help or hinder.
If anything, criminals bumping each other off saves on trial and prison
costs.
Most legislation comes about as a result of irresponsible behaviour on the
part of a tiny minority. Gun law is no exception.
--
Peter
55°25"N 4°44'W
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:12:14 +1100
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Shane Phelps in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:28:59
> [...]
[ snip ]
>
> >To be fair to NT (and I haven't read the article) the reason for using
> >5-node clusters may be to improve the probability of the voting going
> >the right way. Apparently (and this might be computer folklore) there
> >was a reasonably high incidence of the majority being wrong in the old
> >3-way voting systems used by NASA and the military.
>
> I think its very significant, then, that NS couldn't do it with four,
It's not my area, but I believe that an odd number is required to provide
a casting vote.
> but required five. It would make sense, statistically. Clustering, I
> would presume, compounds the protection from failure. If one box has x
> chance of failure, then the minimum, and unlikely, value for x for two
> boxes is x*x, or 2^x. For three, the minimum value, more likely but
^^^^^^^^^^^
pedant point - x^2, but I'm sure it was just a typo
> still theoretical with modern clustering technology, is x*x*x. The
> clustering technology allows the 'voting' method, but its still possible
> (even potentially likely, given that we're studying failure) for two
> systems to fail in the same way. With each additional system, however,
> the cluster compounds the protection, nonetheless. With five systems,
> x*x*x*x*x, it becomes quite unlikely (but still a possibility!) that
> something will go wrong.
>
Not really. The probablity of the voting being wrong is x^(ceiling (n/2))
If you've got 3 voting, the vote is wrong if 2 are wrong, with 5, it's
3 buggered. Given a probability of failure of .1 (for ease of calculation)
a cluster of 3 has a .1^2 or .01 probability of being wrong. With 5 in
the vote, it's .1^3 or .001
Of course there are lots of other potential failure modes, so to cover
yourself as well as possible you need n-1 private LANs for heartbeat
monitoring (and possibly n-1 serial connections for the same reason)
One of the big concerns with clustering AFAIK is that one node will lose
the heartbeat from the others and take over, even if the others are working
fine. There are lots of sophisticated schemes for cluster monitoring
which I'm happy to say I haven't worked with (yet)
> Apparently, MS got some clustering code which isn't as horrible as the
> system code they've compiled. So they can do five nines. Wow. But
> almost any two arbitrary Linux boxes could probably provide more
> reliability than five dedicated MS systems. ;-)
>
Possibly not. 99.999% availability is horribly hard to guarantee. Given
100 individual Unix systems in good hardware fettle and clean power over
a 12 month period you'd probably average less than 5 minutes downtime
each, but that's not guaranteeing availability.
I've had better experiences with NT than many of you, and worse than some.
I'd think NT boxes would average closer to 99.99% (1 hr/yr down).
It's not the average, it's the worst case that counts with HA figures.
That's why true HA systems are so expensive, and why so much effort is
being put into clustering. Guaranteeing application failover transparency
is a whole other can of big wriggly worms as well ;-)
> >I almost forgot. A client had a HA Sequent box acting as an FTP gateway.
> >I think they installed it in 1994 or 1995, and eventually retired it
> >in 1999 because it wasn't Y2K-compliant (nary a reboot between going
> >live and switching off at the end of it's useful life) It probably stayed
> >up well into 2000. I guess some Intel boxes *can* be reliable after all.
>
> If you get lucky, sure; anything's possible. I've received a Sun box
> straight from Access Graphics with a dead hard drive. No lie.
>
My mistake, It was a Stratus, not a Sequent. It used the old Intel RISC
chip and cost a fortune. If not for the business requirement of guaranteed
availability they would've used a Unix box of some sort and taken the risk
of downtime in the event of a hardware failure.
The silly thing about it was that the business requirements were wrong anyway.
It wasn't very time-critical, there wasn't much of a load, and the phone lines
were the point of failure anyway.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:23:06 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ketil Z Malde"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 32 bits are underkill. 64 bits is the next logical step.
>>> 2x as wide bus, 2x as much data per clock cycle.
>> This is entirely incorrect. We've had 64bit data busses in PCs at least
>> since the introduction of the Pentium.
> The Pentium can only operate on 32 bits at a time. It has a 32 bit ALU.
And? The ALU size has *nothing* to do with bus sizes, which was what
you were discussing in the article I responded to, and which you even
quoted my quotation of!
Also, the size of the ALU has *nothing* to do with whether an OS is 64
or 32 bit.
Additionally, modern descendants of the Pentium have various support
for operations on larger data.
>>> IA64 runs IA32 code like a P100, so they really, really need a 64 bit
>>> OS in order to run at a decent speed.
>> This is also hogwash - a 64bit OS is probably slower. What you
>> probably
> No, I mean a 64 bit OS at N Mhz will be faster than a 32 bit OS at N mhz.
This is not correct, and what you wrote above is still hogwash.
A 64bit OS will waste space on longer pointers, which will mean that
more data must be transferred from memory, caches are filled up more
quickly, and things in general will go more slowly.
The only exception is if your working set is larger than a couple of
gigabytes. This is the case for e.g. medium to large database servers
and number-crunching supercomputers, but not yet for average desktop
use.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: 22 Feb 2001 12:23:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> I wonder if we could have used that tactic at Desert Storm.....
:>
:> [.sigsnip]
: Well, Actually, the Iraqi soldiers started surrendering to camera crews
: precisely because the A-10's and B-52's WEREN'T shouting "BANG!" out the
: window.
: From an interrogation of an Iraqi POW:
: Interrogator:
: "Why did you and your friends surrender?"
: POW:
: Because of the air strikes.
: Interrogator:
: "There were no air strikes on your unit"
: POW:
: Yes, but we SAW the air strikes against the Republican Guards
: units behind us.
Has there ever been a war other than Vietnam in which air superiority
was not decisive?
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft
Date: 22 Feb 2001 12:28:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 22 Feb 2001 02:51:59 GMT, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>There are tens of millions of Linux users in the Third World whose
:>living standards do not begin to approach those of working-class people
:>in the U.S. and other industrialized nations.
: I'd say the same thing here -- I think Linux is probably more popular
: in the rich countries than elsewhere.
PC usage certainly is, but I was always under the impression that
Linux usage as a percentage of PC users was much higher in developing
nations.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with display properties
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:27:08 GMT
Thanks alot to everybody. I set the resolution according to specs of the
monitor which is ancient, but I found them on some web site. The screen on
the 800X600 does not expand to the edges of the monitor, but it is still
better than it was.
Thanks again.
"John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Qluk6.160316$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi I installed redhat 6.2 on my computer and when I open let say
properties
> of
> display the dialog box does not fit my display and I have move the box
> around to click buttons, it is 640X480. I can not make higher resolution
> beacause my monitor is an old 14'. So I want just to correct what I can.
> Could anybody help me with that.
> Thanks
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Spam by proxy
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:35:33 GMT
Wow, with Chad and all the responses to his inanities,
there are way too many posts here every time I check in.
Wheew!
Ye gawds!
Chris (dazed and amazed, his brain is razed)
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:34:13 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:00:09 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > >
> > > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If the Government *WERE TO PASS LEGISLATION* which banned government
> > > > contributions of code to Linux, private vendors would be using Linux
> > > > anyway. There is nothing to stop those private vendors from using Linux.
> > > > They are selling Linux to the Navy right now to replace Microsoft, Airforce
> > > > too! There was an article about it in the Linux Journal this month.
> > > > Don't forget about embedded Linux chips taking on Cisco! Cisco is very
> > > > worried about this as now they have over 100 competitors when before they
> > > > had none.
> > > >
> > > > Even if the Government were stupid enought to ban contributions of code
> > > > from NASA or the NSA or whoever, the vendors would just haul it in anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft has to face the facts that it has died.
> > > > It just has to face those facts.
> > > >
> > > > And if your a manager who's proposed Microsoft for your business,
> > > > I think you should retire. You've just become useless to our
> > > > organization. Retire.
> > >
> > > I dunno, our Windows project is going to be DII-COE compliant.
> > > I hear rumors that the DII-COE geniuses want to phase out
> > > the support for UNIX. In other words, the military wants to
> > > become dependent on a single vendor for their operating
> > > system. Sounds very outrageous. If true, I'm dumbfounded,
> > > feckless, and fearful.
> >
> > The General in charge will get reamed up the ass some day.
> > The military is VERY harsh on high-ranking officers who fuck things
> > up. Maybe not immediately...but as soon as the failure happens, and
> > the post-mortem analysis is done (and the military ALWAYS does
> > post-mortem analysis of system failures)....the fingers will be
> > pointing at the men who chose to use Windows....and the General
> > who approved it.
>
> One complaint I've heard is that the software decisions "are so
> political." Sorry I don't have a link, but this was given as a reason
> for Windows adoption in government, including the military. The gist of
> the article was that the generals and admirals weren't making the
> decisions, that Congress critters were micromanaging Windows into the
> military over some objections. Naturally, those civilians responsible
> will be nowhere nearby when the systems fail.
I find it incredible that anyone with a grain of intellegence would even
consider for one moment recommending any M$ product for military use. But
"Military Intellegence" is an oxymoron.
The recent exploits of the Russian "hackers" breaking into M$ should serve
as a wake-up call. Or are memories so short?
Open source code, where a full security audit is possible, is the only
cost-effective solution, the alternative being custom code which is too
dependent on a core team that could be broken up through any number of
foreseeable and unforeseeable causes.
--
Peter
55°25"N 4°44'W
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one.
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:09:01 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Well it's not exactly gone yet, but it's well on the way.
>
>
>http://dailynews.netscape.com/mynsnews/story.tmpl?table=n&cat=50300&id=200102211148000244539
VA Linux makes some good machines, but the hardware world is VERY competitive.
We just setup a data center a few months ago, we looked at the VA Linux boxes,
and weighed them against a local vendors. The VA Linux boxes were pretty, but
$1000 more than the local vendor for the same thing.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
