Linux-Advocacy Digest #588, Volume #32 Thu, 1 Mar 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: My long signature (Steve Mading)
Re: [OT] .sig ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (CR Lyttle)
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) (Barry Schwarz)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: The Windows guy. (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: So, here's something to chew on... ("Joel Barnett")
Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax) (Armando Ortiz)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("John S. Dyson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("John S. Dyson")
Re: So, here's something to chew on... ("Reefer")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Peter Hayes)
Re: The Windows guy. (Marten Kemp)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Shane Phelps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My long signature
Date: 2 Mar 2001 00:06:06 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Fuck you all
: The signature will continue to grow at a rate of 1 user per day from now
: on until you all get over it
It's March 1st today. You wrote this on Feb 27th. Your sig file
still only goes up to "K:" in your most recent posts I've read.
Are you really serious about adding 365 new users to it per year?
I'm calling your bluff. If you try the above, people will not
"get over it", they will simply killfile you and you won't have anyone
to play with.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 00:10:29 GMT
[snips]
"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Once upon a while "chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>(Yes, I'm not american. Thank god!)
> >>
> >> I'm glad you're not, too. We don't need any more book-burning fascist
> >> censors in our country.
> >
> >
> >Ah, an extra note:
> >
> >*plonk*
>
> As expected, from a book-burning fascist censor.
While he may or may not be a book-burning fascist censor, I don't see the
relevance of your expectation to his action. His action was to prevent
*him* seeing further posts, not to prevent you or others from posting. If I
decide to cancel a subscription to a magazine, that doesn't make me a
censor, it simply means I don't want to recieve any more of whatever it is
the magazine has to say... but others may, and my action doesn't interfere
with that process.
So how is his effectively cancelling his subscription in *any* way an
"expected" action of a "book-burning fascist censor" specifically, as
opposed to an available action open to anyone who doesn't want to tune in?
I don't get it.
------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 00:11:50 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001
> > [...]
> > >It was only specified a single copy of ME, it was not specified whether
> it
> > >be an OEM or upgrade or retail. Even if you take full MSRP retail price,
> > >you'd be hard pressed to find all the components mentioned for less than
> > >that. The cheapest new retail hard drive I can find is about $75 for a
> > >10GB. You might be able to find some liquidation somewhere cheaper, but
> > >let's stick with current retail products.
> >
> > Yes, lets. Current retail prices are approximately 200%-300% greater
> > for Microsoft's OS than they were in 1985.
> >
> > Monopoly pricing. Case closed.
>
> Are you kidding me? Windows 1.0 when it first came out was outrageous,
> something like $500 IIRC. The Windows SDK was over $2000 for the SDK alone
> (today, it's a free download).
Phony pricing. They published that price, but never sold at that. It was
just a club to hold over the OEM heads : "Do what we want, or pay full
street price". OEMs were paying $5-$10 per one acquaintance of mine. But
the companies were required to keep that information "confidential"
--
Russ
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Barry Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.)
Date: 2 Mar 2001 00:14:32 GMT
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:12:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz
Kylheku) wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:34:36 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:15:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence
>>> Kirby) wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Aaron Kulkis" writes:
>>> >
>>> >...
>>> >
>>> >>Complete bozos are not given security clearances nor allowed to even
>>> >>seeh, let alone use military code books.
>>>
>>> ROFL. Is Aaron asserting that field officers can't see codebooks,
>>> unless they're also smart? Sheesh !
>>
>>Do you know what it takes to become an officer these days?
>
>An 8th grade education, history of antisocial behavior, and a three
>foot long criminal record?
No, those are the requirements for televangelists.
<<Remove the del for email>>
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:14:24 +0100
Edward Rosten wrote:
> > Bullshit. You couldn't buy a MS OS "off the shelf" in 1985. MS didn't
> > start to retail MS-DOS until Dos 4.0, which came out around 1989, and
> > Windows did not become an OS until Windows 3.0 (possibly Windows 2/386,
>
> It is debatable that Win3x (or even 9X) is an OS.
>
No it´s not. Win3x was never an OS. It was an app which mimicked an OS.
But under OS/2 it did this just fine (much more stable than win95)
>
> > The price of Windows 1.0 was $100 (I was wrong in an earlier post when I
> > thought it was $500) but required DOS, which meant Dos + Windows costed
> > $199, about $8 cheaper than the MSRP today, and Windows today is 1000x
> > what
> > Windows 1.0 was.
>
> If Windows today is 1000x what Windows 1 was then it must be a pretty
> poor product. Oh wait, it is...
>
well, just that, windows.
Sums it up, I´d say.
Peter
--
Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
dumb to handle the real thing.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:22:32 +0100
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 04:54:49 GMT, Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Bob Hauck wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:04:03 GMT, Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >How does run Linux as a guest of Linux?
> >>
> >> VMWare.
>
> >And can one run VMWare as a guest of VMWare?
>
> I dunno, but there have been reports of people running Linux inside
> VMWare inside Linux. Which is what I thought you were asking.
>
> If you want to continue this to infinite levels, you probably want an
> IBM mainframe, which has much better hardware support for this kind of
> thing than does x86.
>
Yep, this is possible. Did it once for my amusement.
--
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Win 95,
Win NT 4.0 or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:37:25 -0800
"Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97mlhm$1gu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So, under Windows 2000 Pro, i was merrily surfing along with 256M RAM, and
> ICQ, AIM and Outlook Expres, and Livejournal's client running in the
> background..
>
> Went to start Musicmatch Jukebox, and things started to act odd..so, i
> closed MM. Things were still acting odd. CTRL-ALT-DELETE, brought up the
> "taskmanager" and found t he PID for Windows Explorer was using 95-100%
CPU
> time.
>
> Time to kill it.
>
> Clicked "Kill Process."
>
> "Action denied."
>
> What the fuck?..
>
> Clicked it again.
>
> "Action denied."
>
> Grr..
>
> Logged out of my non-admin user account, and tried as Administrator.
>
> "Action denied."
>
> Grr!!!..
>
> Logged back into the non-admin account. Still had the same processes in
the
> background. Still frozen at 95-100% CPU time.
>
> Now, I assume that Windows will refuse to let one disable things and turn
> off things, to maintain system stability. But when you have a runaway
> process like that, you've got to try to kill it, and restart it again,
> right? I mean, under the UNIX world, I can always hit a keystroke, log
into
> another console, and ps all i like to find the runaway process, and kill
it
> by process id, log back out, and carry on my merry day, right?
>
> I mean, rebooting is a sign of surrender, isn't it? When you've exhausted
> everything you can think of, you reboot.
>
> So, in so many words, I have an operating system that tells me "No,
asshole,
> you cannot do that because *I* know that if you disable that I will lock
up,
> crash, or grow unstable." Even though I realize the implications, and also
> realized that it had already grown unstable, and found out what was
burning
> up CPU time.
>
> Even though it was already unstable? I could not go in and try to remove
> what was causing the problem, because my OS said it would not allow me to
do
> it?
>
> At least with UNIX, there never is a question to whether or not your
> computer will flat out refuse to do something that you tell it, as root.
It
> can question, but it will not refuse, to the best of my knowledge. It does
> not assume to know more about what you need to do than you know. If you
tell
> it to do something boneheaded, by gosh, it will do exactly that.
>
> I have never had to wrestle with a UNIX system because of simple problems.
I
> have never had to wonder if my computer will deny me access to something
> because it felt it should not do such a thing. My only worry was because I
> do not know UNIX enough, that I will type the wrong command and toast
root.
> Or /usr/sbin. or /usr anything. But that is because the fault would lie
> squarely on my shoulders if something stupid were to happen.
>
> So, I rebooted.
>
> Uptime for Win2k Pro -- three hours.
If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k sucks", I
guess you came to the right place.
jbarntt
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Adrian Feliciano
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
> Do What thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
> Love is the law, love under will
> -Aleister Crowley
>
> Harm None
> -Wiccan Law
>
> As above, so below
> -Hermetic Philosophy
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
------------------------------
From: Armando Ortiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax)
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 00:46:57 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> WarpKat wrote:
> >
> > I've actually asked a full $180 (or whatever the cost of Windows currently
> > is) to be deducted from a laptop that I had no intention of running Windows
> > on. The sales person laughed at me. I hung up. 'nuff said.
> >
>
> Better to talk to a supervisor, and inform said supervisor of
> said order-taker's lack of customer service skills.
Supervisors are glorified laugh-ats in customer service and have just about as
much of a clue as a sack of wet mice.
------------------------------
From: "John S. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:09:09 -0500
"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>=20
> What's wrong with the principle "I'll share with you if you share
> with me"?
>=20
Nothing, except such sharing doesn't make software 'free'. The problem =
with the
GPL isn't the license, but the people who use it and use the term 'free' =
misleadingly
in describing it.
John
------------------------------
From: "John S. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:12:39 -0500
"John S. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:ymCn6.125$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>=20
> What's wrong with the principle "I'll share with you if you share
> with me"?
>=20
Nothing, except such sharing doesn't make software 'free'. The problem =
with the
GPL isn't the license, but the people who use it and use the term 'free' =
misleadingly
in describing it.
John
************
PS... RMS really sounded like a goof on NPR a few days ago. He called =
in with his rant and
it was silly. If I was involved with the FSF, I'd be more embarassed =
than I am currently disgusted
with the lies.
John
------------------------------
From: "Reefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 01:23:20 GMT
[SNIP]
blablablabla....
[/SNIP]
Trolling...and a bad one to...
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Adrian Feliciano
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
> Do What thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
> Love is the law, love under will
> -Aleister Crowley
>
> Harm None
> -Wiccan Law
>
> As above, so below
> -Hermetic Philosophy
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 01:23:52 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:55:32 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > By pointing out, for only the umpteenth time, that the argument is not
> > *BASED ON* the data you claim it is; you merely *wish* it were, so that
> > you could pretend it is a flawed argument. The fact is, it is an
> > extremely strong argument showing that Microsoft maintains the price of
> > their products above competitive levels. A consumer in 1985 buying an
> > MS OS off the shelf would pay about $49, I think; in 2001, its up to
> > $185.
>
> Bullshit. You couldn't buy a MS OS "off the shelf" in 1985. MS didn't start
> to retail MS-DOS until Dos 4.0, which came out around 1989, and Windows did
> not become an OS until Windows 3.0 (possibly Windows 2/386, but that was
> like 1988/89 as well). Furthermore, DOS 5.0 retailed for $99, not $49 (and
> Dos 4.0 was about the same price)
I bought a 486dx33, top of the range machine in 1991. It came with Dos 5
and Windows 3.0, and cost something over £2000.
It had a 240Mb hdd, 1Mb graphics card, no sound/cdrom, one 5.25 and one 3.5
floppy drive, 4Mb ram and a 14" monitor.
Component costs - hdd £475, memory 4x48=£192, 5.25 floppy=£55,
3.5 floppy=£42, mobo=£700, vga card=£80, monitor £265, Case=£80,
keyboard=£28
Software, Dos 5.0=£65, Windows 3.0=£70
Prices from Feb 1992 issue of PC Plus magazine.
Today, a 1.3GHz Dell Dimension 8100 is about £1200 Includes
128Mb ram, 20Gb hdd, 17" monitor, 32Mb nVidia graphics, DVD ROM, sound,
modem, Windows ME, MS WorksSuite.
Software is Windows ME =£150, MS Worksuite =£100
In 1992 MS-DOS plus Win3.0 costs £135. Allowing for inflation, WinME costs
about the same as Dos+Win3.0, and adds some additional functuality.
Hardware costs are half, add considerable additional components, and are
several orders of magnitude more powerful.
There is no doubt that Microsoft software prices have not tracked reduced
hardware costs.
The reason should be self-evident. The PC hardware market is extremely
competitive, but there is no competition in the PC OS market, due in the
main to Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive and monopolistic practices.
QED.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 01:33:15 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 04:54:49 GMT, Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Bob Hauck wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:04:03 GMT, Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >How does run Linux as a guest of Linux?
> >>
> >> VMWare.
>
> >And can one run VMWare as a guest of VMWare?
>
> I dunno, but there have been reports of people running Linux inside
> VMWare inside Linux. Which is what I thought you were asking.
>
> If you want to continue this to infinite levels, you probably want an
> IBM mainframe, which has much better hardware support for this kind of
> thing than does x86.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
My original tongue-in-cheek post was about IBM mainframes. The last
anecdotal information I have is that VM can be nested about 5 levels
deep (VM under VM under VM under VM under VM) but that was about 6-7
years ago and I'm uncertain about how much hardware was devoted to the
project. One of these days I'll have to try it and come up with a metric
(xxx MIPS/VM nesting level required before response time becomes greater
than 10 seconds). Working in a test lab has *some* advantages, after
all.
I definitely want to dispel any notion that I'm not impressed with
VMWare. I think that it's a marvelous invention - too bad the x86
hardware doesn't have support for better virtualization.
-- Marten Kemp, VM systems administrator.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[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: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:53:51 +1100
Bob Tennent wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:35:02 -0800, Matthew Levine wrote:
> >
> >The compatibility is not *perfect* (some tables may not format
> >correctly) but all in all, Star makes a great M$ reader and as long as
> >your file isn't too decked out with formatting features like tables,
> >bulleted lists, etc, your documents should more or less look like they
> >did when you authored them under M$ Office.
> >
> >"Bryant Charleston, MCSE" wrote:
> >>
> >> 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!
>
> Better read the original post again. He was asking whether SO *exports* good
> doc files.
>
> Bob T.
It seems to work well for me, at least with moderately simple Word docs.
I haven't tried with formatting macros or complex tables. These may have
trouble.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
