Linux-Advocacy Digest #423, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting Google Facts! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Who is the most heavily killfiled person on cola? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Windows guy. (Mike Martinet)
Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha (Wiley Post)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: State of linux distros (Brent Pathakis)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Mike Martinet)
Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Woofbert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Interesting Google Facts!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 04:10:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paolo Ciambotti wrote:
>In article <9749m1$k2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Pull up http://www.google.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Do the following.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do a search on "Windows" - You see 24,900,000 references. Do a
>>> search on "Microsoft" - You see 14,700,000 references.
>>
>> Search on Linux - You see 40,200,000
>>
>> More than MS+Windows (without even subtracting duplications).
>>
>>
>> -Ed
>
>It could also be 40,200,000 archived messages pleading for help
>with installing Linux. But even that is a good general indication of uptake for
>Linux. How goes that proverb, "Bad publicity is better than no
>publicity"?
>
>You should visit the "Operating System Sucks-Rules-O-Meter" site for an
>interesting evaluation of similar findings.
>
>http://srom.zgp.org/
>
>Ciao.
There are LOTS of people having trouble installing this or that on Linux
just like there are LOTS of people who've been butt shafted by Windows.
Your point is absolutely fucking stupid.
You need to LOOK at the ACTIVITY my freind. Forget about whether it's
working or not in your mind. The OS is drawing the activity.
And this ACTIVITY BLOB is getting bigger.
This is exactly what happened with Windows when it took off.
People were constantly pissed off. (MY GOD, I CAN'T GET PPP TO WORK)
Windows and Linux are frankly easy to set up.
But the world will always be filled with idiots who don't understand
marketing points. Got me Ciao. Iao, Ciaoie...
It's in the volume!
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Who is the most heavily killfiled person on cola?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 04:11:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paolo Ciambotti wrote:
>Screw RFC 1855. Your sig sucks. Nobody reads it anymore. Only you
>understand it. It's pointless, annoying, and you should properly be
>embarassed by it. It's the cyber equivalent of picking your nose in front of an
>audience. Give it up.
Then don't read it idiot!
You don't have to read a GD thing here man.
Just take off and leave.
How simple can it be.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[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 23:17:02 -0500
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > If you remove "HABITUAL criminals killing other HABITUAL CRIMINALS",
> > the number is substantially lower.
> >
> > If you remove HABITUAL CRIMINALS killing anybody, the number of
> > illegal gun deaths remaining (that is, non-habitual criminals
> > commiting wrongful homicide) is exceedingly small.
>
> Which country are you referring to here? I think this particular point
Most any country. Law-abiding citizens are not the ones commiting
the crimes.
> that you make (which I happen to agree with) is true throughout a lot
> of the world. :^)
>
> > *SOME* gun deaths are entirely legitimate, by the way....such
> > as when a bystander, or victim, shoots a perpetrator.
>
> A bystander? Not sure I'd agree with that being taken as anything other
> than murder. Criminals still have rights, even when they abuse the rights
> of others. This is because we live in (what we like to think of as) a
> free society, and is IMHO one of the main features of one...
>
> Donal.
> --
> Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- I have to warn you up front that I'm pretty sure you're full of crap, but
> it might still be interesting to see your argument.
> -- Bill Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:30:53 -0600
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:07:35 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> Try P659, last paragraph:
> >>
> >> ----
> >> "The simplest form of communication between processes is by
> >> *pipes*,
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> A pipe is essentially a queue of bytes between two processes".
> >>
> >> ----
> >>
> >> From this it seems that they are making it pretty clear that a pipe
> >> is a form of IPC. It is not simply reading output from one command
> >> and using that as input for another.
> >
> >There are several kinds of pipes actually. For instance, Win32 has Named
> >pipes as well as shell pipes. Shell pipes, as being referred to here,
are a
> >byproduct of the shell diverting the output of one program into the input
of
> >another.
>
> Irrelevant diversion. Named pipes are pipes, because they are used for
> interprocess communication. Dos pipes are not pipes because there is
> no such thing as IPC without multitasking (at least it's not real IPC,
> and hence they're not real pipes)
I guess that depends on the definition of "process" which is different on
almost all operating systems. Take AmigaOS, which doesn't have unique
memory contexts for applications. It provides piping similar to Unix
without having any kind of process at all (In AmigaOS, applications are
tasks all sharing the same address space). I believe that the old Mac
development environment provided a unix-like shell which included piping,
also similar to Unix, but again.. without processes in the Unix sense.
> >But still, the definition does not state anywhere about the necessity of
> >multitasking to be there for it to be a "real" pipe. The definition also
> >holds for the temporary file used in MS-DOS.
>
> The definition says that pipes are an IPC mechanism. temp files are not.
The definition says it's a queue of bytes between two processes. A file is
most definately a queue of bytes. And it bridges two programs via their
stdin and stdout.
> There's a difference between communicating and doing an autopsy. DOS does
> the latter.
The definition also doesn't say that the processes must be running
concurrently either.
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:26:18 -0700
I have not read all of the posts in this thread. I can only say that,
based on my experience, if you jump into something with what you think
are valid examples/responses, and then encounter substantially stiff
opposition, you are faced with a dilemma.
1) You concede. (Bah! Not if you're at least 32% male - testosterone
doesn't know 'no')
2) If you're marginally or > intelligent, you mash the syntax around in
your head in a violent attempt to re-frame your response to the original
statements in order to deflect read and anticipated criticism.
3) If you're not-so-smart, your only alternatives are name-calling,
denial of premise, lack of recall or disappearance.
It's all fun.
Think the word 'pipes' over and over enough times and it will cease to
make any sense at all.
I have learned a lot (I think) about what pipes are and are not.
Thanks,
MjM
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> >>If you read my message you'll see that working on the origional
> >>definition of pipes stated earlier in the thread (they take output of
> >>one process and put it in to the input of another process)
> >
> > This definition is not only wrong, it does not *require* asunchronous
>
> yes. Pipes need multitasking.
>
> > processing (though that would certainly make them work more efficiently)
> >
> > For example, you *could* do
> >
> > cat very_big_file | head -3
> >
> > without multitasking, though it would not be terribly efficient.
>
> This is a problem that ppes are fully able to solve:
>
> program_that_wont_finish | head -3
>
> pipes can solve that problem if multitasking is used. They can not if
> single tasking is used. Therefore single tasking pipes have only a subset
> of the functionality of mltitasking. Therefore in order to solve all
> computations that pipes are able to solve, multitasking is required.
>
> >> I have proven that
> >>pipes require multitasking,
> >
> > Your example does not show that anything requires multitasking, it only
> > shows that multitasking makes something more efficient.
>
> You didn't read my example properly. I have restated it above. It
> requires multitasking.
>
> > Moreover, your example does not say anything about pipes, because you
> > are working with a completely ficticious definition of what a "pipe" is.
>
> Eh? I have used shell piping syntax. I could write those programs and run
> it under UNIX. I'm not using a definition, I'm using the real thing.
>
>
> >> so I don't need to cite someone elses
> >>definition of pipes to show that they require multitasking.
> >
> > Unless you actually know what a pipe is, you're not in much of a
> > position to say anything about them.
>
> I'm using piping syntax as define under DOS and (modern) UNIX shells. I
> know what it is. How would I know what | did if I didn't know what pipes
> did?
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> | u98ejr
> | @
> Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
> | .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wiley Post)
Subject: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 04:03:15 GMT
The thiefs at Maximum Linux magazine stole my 30.00
subscription fee almost a year ago.
They never sent me any magazines and now they are closing down.
Good!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 23 Feb 2001 04:43:29 GMT
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:26:49 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>> Those poor fund babies -- how my heart bleeds for them.
>
>Tell that to a family which has 90% of the family wealth tied
>up in a small business.
You make it sound like grocery stores are getting hurt by the tax.
The threshold is very high, you have to be a millionaire for the
tax to have *any* effect.
>> I was referring to inheritance. I'd still work if my inheritance ws
>> taxed at 100%.
>
>What incentive does the average person have to save?
>If anything, it's an incentive to blow everything, and become a
>ward of the state.
Not unless becoming a ward of the state leads to a comfortable lifestyle.
I'd save to avoid becoming a ward of the state.
>Everything you have written on the subject is in support of
>taxing the productive for the benefit of those who refuse to
>be productive.
Taxing the productive to create an education system that works
for "productive" children is worthwhile IMO.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Brent Pathakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 04:50:05 GMT
dev null wrote:
> Culled somewhere off of www.devx.com this a.m.
>
> In spite of the fact that Mandrake boasts that it is the hottest Linux
> distributor in retail sales, its retail product is a loss leader. SuSE has
> laid off two-thirds of its U.S. employees. TurboLinux is cutting back on
> its workforce and may soon wed Linuxcare to refocus its efforts onto
> services. Stormix, a commercial distributor that based its offering on
> Debian, has recently filed for bankruptcy. Corel is getting nowhere with
> its Linux distribution. In other words, most Linux distributions, even the
> ones whose market share is growing each year, are concluding that they
> can't make money selling Linux.....
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Wow, get that! Companies sprouting up like weeds, trying to turn a profit
> on
> a free product by adding value only. --dubious value at that. And there
> is only SO much value one can add to a linux distro or the penquinistas
> start braying like donkeys in heat. See Corel for what can happen when
> they think you have 'window-fied' linux!
>
> I'm STILL wondering how they ever thought that they COULD be viable.
> dot com madness, something like mad-cow disease I think.
>
>
>
>
>
Ok...let's just say yours and msoft's wet dream comes true and all of the
Linux distributors go out of business...do you really think the existing
Linux users are going to give up and install WinMe/2000/whatever? Not
likely...it's much more likely that someone would put together a free
distro (I know...Debian already covers this, just being hypothetical).
BESIDES...the beutiful thing is Linux doesn't have to make money to cost MS
business.
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:57:34 -0700
mlw wrote:
>
> I just posted about how I have 1000 times more RAM than my first PC/XT. not
> mentioning my CP/M machine.
>
> Lets face it: we are all running supercomputers. It is simply amazing how much
> computer power we have?
>
Oh God!
Without a doubt. But what gets to me is not so the idea of much raw
power, but the fascination of Complexity and the Awe of Distance.
Complexity: I run fetchmail on my Linux (Heap) gateway to combine mail
from my (growing) numerous email accounts for delivery into Netscape
4.76 on my Win95 box under one username. And, I can Samba-mount a share
from my '95 box on Heap and then telnet from Windows into Heap and do
mindless directory listings. These things would have been
incomprehensible to me 10 years ago with my XT and my BBS. Wow! Could
I Samba-mount a Win95 share and then .htaccess it through Apache?
Probably so. AH, HA HA HA! (Evil scientist laugh)
Awe of Distance: I have no idea where you (mlw) are, what your setup
consists of/looks like but your words appear. The same for the other
hundreds of e-things I come across every day. Simply incredible. If I
let my mind wander I could put you somehwere - behind a desk at a
software company, in a loft in NY, a cyber-cafe in SF, etc. You are all
out there with your separate realities, yet your words show up here
(world-fucking-wide) and that lulls one into thinking that everyone is
at the same venue - but experience says 'no'.
I'm rambling. It is, indeed, awesome.
MjM
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,demon.local
Subject: Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 05:09:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Woofbert wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Whoever you were talking with got fed
> > > > up
> > > > with
> > > > that sort of stupidity and refused to speak with you any further.
> > > > Now
> > > > you're all hurt and get all riled up when someone mentions Godwin.
> > >
> > > Fuck off, loser.
> >
> > Woohoo! I hit the nail -- bang! -- on the head.
> >
> > Godwin! Godwin! Godwin!
>
> Please show us where I accused you to be the leader of a fascist
> dictatorship with a penchant for overrunning a multitude of
> European countries all while wearing a silly-looking mustache...
>
> Be precise.
I never made that accusation. I'm just saying "Godwin" because it riles
you so. Ever seen "Monty Python's Life of Brian"? Jehova, Jehova,
Jehova! Godwin! Godwin! Godwin!
> > ::hamster-dancing!::
>
> that's about your speed, isn't it.
::smirk::
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com> -- http://www.infernosoft.com
"As any discussion of the Macintosh progresses, the likelihood of someone
claiming that the Mac UI was stolen from Xerox approaches 1. At this point,
the thread has degenerated to such an extent that it might as well end."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
