Linux-Advocacy Digest #571, Volume #32 Thu, 1 Mar 01 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: why open source software is better ("vrml3d.com")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure! ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? ("Mike")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... ("Mike")
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Peter da Silva)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Ed Allen)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Ed Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "vrml3d.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:29:14 -0500
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> David Masterson writes:
> > What he said is that a government employee who releases software
> > developed with government monies must release it to the public domain.
>
> But that isn't true. Instead, the fact is that works of government
> employees effectively _are_ in the public domain, released or not. Ever
> wonder why the government doesn't sue for copyright infringement when
> newspapers publish the full text of leaked government documents?
>
> > In his last statement, I think he meant that a government created piece
> > of software could not be released with a GPL copyright on it.
>
> I think that the government can release its works under any license it
> chooses. It just can't sue those who ignore the terms of the license for
> copyright infringement.
>
> In any case, what he wrote was:
>
> > Any government employee who contributes to a GPL'd project is technicly
> > violating the law.
>
> This implies that it would be illegal for a government employee to write a
> patch for Gnucash on company time and have it incorporated into Gnucash.
> This not true. His patch, being a work of the US government, is
> effectively in the public domain and can be incorporated into Gnucash (or
> Quicken, or Microsoft Money...) with complete impunity.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/sectio
n_105.html
is the law in question.
If the government does it, it can't be copyrighted (meaning you can do just
about anything with it, except you probably can't claim you wrote it).
OTOH, this law does not put the government under any obligation to *inform*
people of their rights. So, if they wanted to be sneaky they could patch
Gnucash and not tell anybody. If I happened to know that the patch came
from the government however, I would be within my rights to incorporate any
code in the patch into proprietary software.
IMHO, the law is poorly written. There should be some requirement that the
government make known the status of the work if it is published.
Notice also that there is nothing to prevent someone from assigning
copyright to the government with the proviso that they continue to publish
it under GPL. In other words, there be loopholes! Of course, IANAL...
--Steve
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 28 Feb 2001 23:28:18 -0600
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Oy7n6.707$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > We were talking about IBM using or not using Win2K internally and were
> > ignoring the OEM for the moment, but since you decided to change the
> > subject...
> >
>
> I did not change the subject. You just did. I was talking about IBM
> using or not using W2K internally - I work for IBM. We are in the
> process now of replacing the base W2K install for Thinkpads used
> internally with Linux. Part of my job involves doing just that.
Interesting - a friend of mine working at IBM faxed me a memo that
essentially said that W2K was the prefered OS for ALL IBM desktop machines
... hmmm.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure!
Date: 28 Feb 2001 23:36:08 -0600
"Amphetamine Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "." wrote:
> >
> > > Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of Hotmail
to NT
> > > all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible
news
> > > site with "unnamed" sources.
> >
> > Cnet - Sun->NT
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-344896.html
> >
> > ZDNet - BSD->NT
> > http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/30/ns-17071.html
> >
> > True to form with the Microsoft web site, searching for something
doesn't
> > turn it up. Do you have a link to microsoft.com with their most recent
> > official statement?
> >
> > > Meanwhile, MS themselves stated specifically that no conversion was
ever
> > > attempted. Further, the claim was that MS tried to convert to NT
within
> > > weeks of purchasing Hotmail. It would have taken them months just to
> > > familiarize themselves with the system enough to even begin such a
task, let
> > > alone complete and fail within weeks.
> >
> > That's based on a false premise... MS would be quite capable of fucking
> > up the conversion in just a couple of weeks. A sane programmer wouldn't
> > attempt it without reading and understanding the source code, but sanity
> > is a bit short in some areas.
>
> I believe that the most recent story was based on multiple (many)
> sources, all current MS employees. They repeated the same statement
> about MS not being able to run Hotmail on NT after multiple tries and
> also stated that almost all of MS big websites are running on Unix,
> even after numerous attempts to get them running on MS software. All
> of the employees wished to remain anonymous.
I believe this is utter bullshit. THis is based on multiple (many) current
MS employees. They repeated the same statement about MS never trying to
convert hotmail at any time. They stated that all of MS runs all of it's
websites on IIS and have been doing so for many years. All of these employee
s had no problem giving their names...
>
> Here are the facts from that article (from my notes).
>
> 1. Link Exchange. MS bought Link Exchange and tried to move it from
> Oracle over to SQL. They threw a ton of their best employees into the
> problem. After 2 months they gave up and put it on Oracle/Solaris
> where it remains. :)
Prove it.
>
> 2. BCentral. This site runs on Free BSD, BSD/OS and Solaris. MS
> tried very hard to migrate it to NT and Win2K. They had to quadruple
> the servers to pull it off and they decided it was not worth it! :)
Prove it.
>
> 3. Hotmail. Sure there are a few Win2K servers there but 99% of the
> site runs on Free BSD. :)
Prove it - testing with netcraft proves that it all runs on BSD except the
banner add servers.
(http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.hotmail.com&mode_w=on)
>
> 4. MSN!!!!!!! Yes, MS' own flagship site runs on Apache/Solaris! :)
www.msn.com running IIS5 on Windows 2000.
(http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.msn.com&mode_w=on)
>
> 5. BCentral's ad server is 100% Free BSD. :)
bcentral.com runs IIS5
(http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.bcentral.com&mode_w=on) but
could care less IF the ad server is bsd or not. probably the same ad servers
as those from hotmail. kinda tells you what MS thinks of banner ad servers.
>
> 6. WebTV is almost completely run on Solaris. :)
www.webtv.com IIS5
(http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.webtv.com&mode_w=on) -
besides, MS bought webtv, they didn't build it. YOu don't just gut something
and convert it overnight if it's up and running. ANYONE could tell you that.
>
> 7. An interesting tidbit: When MS announced the release of Win2K, MS
> issued a memo to all of its employees telling them to not even think
> about using it for production because it was too unstable!!!!!!! :)
Complete utter bullshit from someone who's been inside and knows people
inside today. In fact, as of RC1 people were activily encourage to use W2K
and today everyone uses it (except those that obviously would not, like
those supporting ME and those building Whistler). You are lying and I
challenge you to prove your claims.
>
> Since the sources were all current MS employees, they had to remain
> anonymous. Sorry but I forgot to write down the source of the article
> but it was one of the bit computer ezines that is very pro-MS. ;)
> Hehehehehe. This article came out, I believe, around November so
> things might have changed since then.
I challenge the sources to come forward and support their lies.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 05:38:39 GMT
"Bryant Charleston, MCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:t5dn6.1205$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If you compose a text document in Star Office 5.2, will it be readable on
a
> Windows platform (as a text or Word doc) ? I can't seem to find any FAQs
> that address this issue. Thanks for any help!
> Bryant C Charleston
> A+ Network + MCP MCSE (NT4)
Well, Bryant, it doesn't take much to give it a try, and I suspect that's
going to be your best bet.
In my experience, text documents transfer just fine, as text or doc files,
with the caveat that text files are just that: text files. In fact, text
files will transfer to vi, or emacs, or even ed, for God's sake. If you're
really talking text, it transfers fine.
But, Star Office refers to any word processing document as a "text
document." Not exactly unambiguous, but par for the course with Star. You'll
find that word processing documents are another matter altogether. I have
five documents that I used to test Star Office when I first evaluated 5.1,
and later used the same documents for 5.2. They contain various things that
are pretty ordinary for the documents we create. These include tables,
columns, rotated pages, figures, formatting, and equations, and some other
stuff thrown in, I'm sure.
Star Office had varying degrees of trouble with the five documents, and
especially disliked tables, rotated pages, and figures. It couldn't deal
with rotated pages at all. Tables and figures tended to be moved, both on
the page and within the text.
I also created files in Star Office, and exported them in rtf and doc
formats, with mixed success. But, since I normally use Word, I didn't do
much on this end. Equations and rtf files, though, were particularly
unsuccessful: Star cannot write or read back its native equations in rtf
format. It does fine with Word equations, but you probably don't have the
Word equation editor unless you already have Word, and if you're running
Linux, you don't have it at all.
I have also tried moving some basic specifications back and forth between
Word and Star, and the results have been poor.
In the end, Star is available for download, and before you commit to being
able to transfer anything more than basic ascii text, you should download it
and try it with the kinds of documents you'll be using.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:37:59 +0500
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <3a9ddd65$0$38526$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting - a friend of mine working at IBM faxed me a memo that
> essentially said that W2K was the prefered OS for ALL IBM desktop
> machines
> ... hmmm.
>
Not surprising. That memo, no doubt, came from upper level management.
Management directives such as this have never worked in the past and are
not likely to work in the future. Of course, it wastes tons of money
buying W2K licenses that will just be thrown away, but that's what must
be done in the real world to get our jobs done.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 05:57:35 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <IY1n6.13991$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
> >
> >The phone company was granted a monopoly, Charlie, much like your gas
> >company and your water company are today. The fact that you could call
your
> >grandmother for a nickel isn't the same the price of housing or gas. It
> >would be the same if you could put 1000 houses in the place that 1 house
> >occupied 20 years ago, or get 10,000 miles per gallon of gas in your car
> >today, but you can't, and it isn't.
> The BELL comapanies became companies BECAUSE they had no regulatory
> agency to govern them. You are totally wrong.
>
> They were NEVER granted a MONOPOLY.
>
> No company has ever been GRANTED a MONOPOLY.
I could explain that you're wrong, Charlie, and I could provide references,
and so on and so on, but what's the point? You are the quintessential fool
who will never be confused by facts. Anything further I write will be met by
the same stupid, baseless arguments, complete with lots of capital letters
and horrible butchery of the English language.
It's worse than just not worth it, Charlie. It's not even interesting.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,alt.unix.alt.unix.geeks,comp.unix.sys5,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.solaris,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.aix,csu.unix.aix,comp.unix.sco,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: 28 Feb 2001 19:27:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bobbi Leasure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are going to need documentation and lots of it, and Linux has more...
There are more books written about Linux in specific, but more books on
commercial UNIX are likely to be useful for FreeBSD because of the shared
design and code base.
> At this point Linux is much easier to set up and get running than FreeBSD
> is...
I've installed recent versions of Red Hat, and their installer still isn't
as easy and reliable as the FreeBSD one.
> [i.e. the install program has no Back function, if you make a mistake...
> your only recourse is to exit the install and start over, and such non
> friendlies])
The FreeBSD installer isn't a series of steps you need to do in a specific
order. It's a smorgasbord: you can always go back in and change things
again and again until you get it the way you want. Until you hit "commit"
nothing has modified the disk.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 06:01:03 GMT
In article <tUfn6.657$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> In case you seriously never "got it", Erik, this is described, perfectly
>> accurately, entirely consistently, and completely practically, as
>> "trying and failing".
>
>Really? So, if my plans are that I will visit europe, but It takes me 3
>years to do so, that means I failed simply because I didn't do it right
>away?
>
Yes. Every attempt made until success is another failure.
And it is quite common in colloquial English to say that you are
still failing until you succeed.
Nothing you say will magically transform attempts that do not work
into anything but failure.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 06:01:05 GMT
In article <CTfn6.656$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001
>> [...]
>> >Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of Hotmail to
>NT
>> >all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible
>news
>> >site with "unnamed" sources.
>>
>> There was only one occurrence, so it is not surprising that all
>> references are based on the same story of this occurrence. The fact is
>> that you would go to your grave swearing that it never happened, and
>> using as your only proof a series of arguments from ignorance, and the
>> fact that unless the attempt was successful, it can be disqualified by
>> your rules for not being 'complete' enough.
>
>I'm not using an argument from ignorance. MS has stated quite clearly that
>no conversion was attempted, much less a failed one. It's an anonymous
>source in a less than credible news site versus the actual people that would
>know. You choose to believe the anonymous sources because you want to.
>
It is not as if we don't know they lie when it suits them.
Bill Gates said in an interview "Our software has no significant
number of bugs that people want fixed."
>> >Meanwhile, MS themselves stated specifically that no conversion was ever
>> >attempted. Further, the claim was that MS tried to convert to NT within
>> >weeks of purchasing Hotmail. It would have taken them months just to
>> >familiarize themselves with the system enough to even begin such a task,
>let
>> >alone complete and fail within weeks.
>>
>> How do you complete something that failed? You moron. As if we give a
>> rat's ass what Microsoft "themselves" claim.
>
>Hint: Look up the word complete. You can either successfully, or
>unsuccessfully complete something.
>
>> >> As for getting the details from microsoft.com or hotmail.com, MS would
>be
>> >> only too happy to lie if it was in their best interests, so they are an
>> >> unreliable source of information. Just check out Billy testifying in
>the
>> >> court case!
>> >
>> >And the only other source is unnamed.
>>
>> And unrefuted.
>
>What exactly do you call the MS official statement that the rumors are
>false, if not a refutation?
>
Spin ? PR ? Covering up ?
You pick, they all fit.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
