Linux-Advocacy Digest #797, Volume #32 Wed, 14 Mar 01 06:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: .Net to run on Linux (J Sloan)
Re: .Net to run on Linux (Tim Hanson)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows?? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("LShaping")
Re: Linux PDA'S Blowing everything away! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why can't Apple do it? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: C# ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("LShaping")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Marada
C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Why can't Apple do it? ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Christian Brandt)
Re: Linux Joke (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Joke (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Joke (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:14:18 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> It just confirms what they said earlier, beside...
> They have to, in order to get .NET as a(n open) standard, they have to
> implement it on two platforms.
Given microsoft's track record, one would have to be
quite gullible to expect solid support from microsoft for
a non microsoft platform. If .net were actually to become
popular, ms would use it as a weapon against non ms
operating systems, just as they use ms office now.
They might well release some partial support for non
ms operating systems, but they will counsel users to
"migrate to windows" for best results, and they will of
course also be poised to pull the rug out from under
your platform of choice the moment it will benefit them
to do so.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:31:21 GMT
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > It just confirms what they said earlier, beside...
> > They have to, in order to get .NET as a(n open) standard, they have to
> > implement it on two platforms.
>
> Given microsoft's track record, one would have to be
> quite gullible to expect solid support from microsoft for
> a non microsoft platform. If .net were actually to become
> popular, ms would use it as a weapon against non ms
> operating systems, just as they use ms office now.
>
> They might well release some partial support for non
> ms operating systems, but they will counsel users to
> "migrate to windows" for best results, and they will of
> course also be poised to pull the rug out from under
> your platform of choice the moment it will benefit them
> to do so.
>
> jjs
Naturally, built into XP is the standard secret decoder ring which
supposedly keys in a load of new features available ONLY by servers
supporting .net, forcing *nix sites to play along.
--
Oh Dad! We're ALL Devo!
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 02:39:33 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And it's all integrated just like the Monopolyware crap your used to
> using and the most unforgiving part about it is it's ALL FREE!
>
> Yes meatheads! You don't have to justify a $750,000 upgrade
> price for this deal as nobody's pockets need to get lined in order
> to use this product!
How could anyone have standardized on something that wasn't a final product
until today?
"You idiots! what are you doing riding horses when I just invented the
automobile today! You're all crazy, you should have been using automobiles
years ago".
Real intelligent there Charlie.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows??
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 02:45:17 -0600
Uhh.. no. NT Workstation was released at the same time as NT Server.
I still have my RC1 of NT 3.1 Workstation dated July 1993.
WIndows 95 was barely even a concept when NT was released, much less a
"rollout plan".
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I actually followed the roll out of Windows 95 and NT, and the concept was
> going to be, have NT as the server OS, and have Windows 95 as the desktop
OS,
> reason why they wanted to push Windows 95 onto the desktop market was to
allow
> companies to continue to use their old, DOS/Win16 based apps whilst have
the
> potential to use 32bit applications once they were ready and selling.
However,
> what happened, corperatins chose to install a cut down version of NT
server so
> that they had the multi-user, security capabilities to stop employees from
> fucking up computer settings. Microsoft bowed to corperate pressure and
> released a NT Workstation version with those capabilities, hence, the
split was
> made.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Don't you think 2001 and is a little late to finally be coming out
with
> > > > Pre-emptive multitasking, Memory protection, and full virtual
memory?
> > > >
> > > > Cripes, Apple worked on their Next Generation OS (Copeland) for
close to
> > > > 10 years before finally giving up and admitting defeat that their
> > > > programmers
> > > > just couldn't "fix" the MacOS. They needed to start over from
scratch.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, Apple in that case had the grace to give up. MS did not, they
> > > stuffed Win9X unto the world.
> >
> > Win9X wasn't meant to "fix" windows. It was meant as a hack to move
people
> > to NT. It wasn't supposed to stick around this long, but MS decided to
> > chase after the enterprise market which severely delayed the release of
a
> > consumer version of NT.
> >
> > You act like MS *WANTED* there to be a Windows 95. They didn't. They
would
> > have much rather had you switch to NT back in 93 than maintain two OS's
for
> > another 8 years.
>
------------------------------
From: "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:31:51 GMT
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <v1vr6.57609$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> You're right, of course, but it's the difference between
> >> working by trial and errors, and knowing for sure.
> >> If we're speaking of getting the best result with minimal
> >> effort, it turns out that understanding machine language is
> >> more time/cost effective than moving in the dark. Sometimes
> >> benchmark data happen to be biased, and you don't know.
> >> Giuliano Colla
> >
> >Again, that just depends on the language.
> >LShaping
> >
> No that depends more on the algorithm and the data set size than it
> does on the language and to select the proper algorithm for a
> problem you should really have some understanding of what goes on.
> You might be able to plunk out "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" on a
> toy piano but to write a symphony you must know a little about each
> instrument which will be used.
> Your undisclosed genius might empower you to write a song which will
> live as long as a Mozart tune but that toy piano will make it sound
> like a Barry Manilow special.
> Understanding what you are attempting to do is always more powerful
> and efficient than willful ignorance in the false hope of
> simplicity.
Classical music has been my only choice of music for many years. That
analogy supports my argument perfectly. The conductor has to know a lot
about how the instruments sound, but he leaves the playing of each
individual instrument up to the musician. Thanks, that is a very good
analogy.
LShaping
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux PDA'S Blowing everything away!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 02:47:10 -0600
More of your stupidity Charlie.
Handsprings are alternate versions of the Palm. They run PalmOS, not Linux.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>
>
> http://www.handspring.com
>
> I'm going to get one of these!
>
> They say the batteries last for 1 month on a single recharge
> and they have wireless internet communications built in!
>
> GO LINUX!
>
>
>
>
> Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Apple do it?
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 02:50:01 -0600
"Lars Träger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Neil Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > next 10 years is pretty short sighted. It truely is up there
infamous
> > > > industry quotes like the IBM top exec who predicted that the world
wide
> > > > global market for computers was some small 2 digit number (IIRC), or
> > > > Gates' quote about 640k being all the memory anyone would ever need.
> > > We all know Bill only said that because it was all he had to offer
and what
> > > MS has to offer defines the limits of the universe.
> >
> > Gates never said that. It was Thomas Watson Jr.
> >
> > Think about it. The 640K limitation wasn't a Microsoft curse, it was
> > IBM's architecture. IBM Made the mistake of mapping system ROMs above
> > the 640K region instead of down lower. Microsoft worked within those
> > bounds.
>
> Yup, still doesn't change the fact that Gates did say it. But I forgot,
> Gates says that he never said it. Anyway:
>
> http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/csr/comphist/gates.htm#tc44
>
> --->
> DA: Now Microsoft is primarily a software company, but you actually got
> into some important hardware development with the Mouse. Do you want to
> say a few words about that?
>
> BG: Microsoft was playing a much broader role[laughs] than just doing
> software for this machine. I mean whether it is the keyboard, the
> character set, the graphics adapter, or even the memory layouts. I laid
> out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the upper 384
> I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is why they
> talk about the 640K limit. It is actually a limit, not of the software,
> in any way, shape, or form, it is the limit of the microprocessor. That
> thing generates addresses, 20-bits addresses, that only can address a
> megabyte of memory. And, therefore, all the applications are tied to
> that limit. It was ten times what we had before. But to my surprise, we
> ran out of that address base for applications within -- oh five or six
> years people were complaining.
> <---
>
> So even *if* he didn't say it, it's *still* his fault.
No matter what he says, he's not responsible for the layout. IBM is. IBM
had built the PC and designed the layout before they had even HEARD of MS.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 02:59:59 -0600
"FM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98ma5h$ubl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> What, pray tell, does any of this have to do with the Java *language*?
> >> These are all implementation details; when someone talks about 'C'
> >> you shouldn't expect another to go into the intricacies of
> >> implementation details of gcc as opposed to watcom.
>
> >We're not talking about the *LANGUAGE*, we're talking about the
byte-code.
> >The Java byte-code, as the Javac compiler (and thus any compiler that
wants
> >to be compatible with the sun JVM) outputs it is optimized for
> >interpretation.
>
> You are good at changing the topic.
No.
> Some of the things you wrote:
>
> >Java is interpreted, it can be compiled, but the language is designed and
> >implemented as an interpreted language.
>
> And
>
> >The language was not designed with JIT in mind.
>
>
> - So you were talking about Java the language.
No, I wasn't. I used the wrong term when i said those things. It's clear
in the context that I'm talking about the byte code, since the byte code is
what's interpreted. Byte code is a language in and of itself, different
from the Java language.
Yes, I used the wrong term a few times. Sue me.
> Origin of this thread:
>
> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I've looked into ms's C#... looks like the spitting image of java to
me!
> >> Looks like trouble on the horizon. I wonder if Sun will sue them
again??
>
> >Actually, it's not. There are a lot of differneces. The first being
that
> >it's not interpreted.
>
> So the difference between Java and C# has nothing to do with
> the language, when both are clearly languages, not platforms?
One needs to seperate the language from the platform. Clearly, the OP was
talking about the Java platform, not the language itself, since you can't
copyright a language. You can copyright or patent the implementation, but
not the language itself. Thus, the only way that someone could be sued by
Sun is if they were talking about the implementation (ie, the platform).
------------------------------
From: "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:02:45 GMT
"Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:iJwr6.242893$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If a
> > > > programmer is not willing to venture into the real world of modern
> > > > computing, then he will be left behind in the sand. I would love to
> > > > have a more efficient operating system than Windows, but command
line
> > > > stuff is for the birds.
> > >
> > > This single sentence rules you out as an opponent worth of an answer.
> > > Thank you for your time.
> >
> > Does that mean I get the last word?
> > Yes!
>
> I think its absolutely amazing that people who advocate windows use idea
of
> "venturing out into the real world" when they are advocating closed-doors
> secret policies where their activity is not scrutinized by anyone except
the
> head con-troll-er.
> Does it every occur to these people that having your software scrutinized
by
> the "whole world" is just about as far into the real world as you can
> venture?
> Scot Mc Pherson
That is a principle which is easy to understand for a lot of things. Any
more popular product is more scrutinized. Not sure how that argument
supports Linux over Windows. I do not advocate closed-doors secret
policies, and if opening Windows can be done, it might be a better solution
than a breakup (but the devil probably is in the enforcement, the government
amicus seem to favor a breakup). Like Orrin Hatch said, if we do not go for
enforecment now (such as a breakup), we will be in for heavy handed
government regulation later. I agree 100% with the open OS thing, since the
OS is the standard to which all applications are written. I sincerely hope
the appeals court will understand that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 14 Mar 2001 09:28:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
That doesn't say much. It just means that they have to have a formal set of
rules as to when it's done, so they can't say "I don't like Ed, let's take his
car". You can still do it-- look at eminent domain, or the likely seizure of
toxic chemicals or the like in your home.
Also, which rights matter most? Since some will inevitably conflict (e. g.,
one person's freedom of assembly versus the rights of others to use the
property the first bloke's group blocks the door of), a heirarchy must be/is
established. The heirarchy says a lot about a society.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:50:00 +0100
In article <6tDr6.17207$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Wouldn't that be a good thing? ;)
>
> Have you used any of the alternatives? Or tried to get more than a few
> releases of the GPL-flavored Linux version to interoperate correctly
> with anything else?
I have Linux interoperating nicely with Solaris 2.6 & 8, HP-UX 11.0 and
AIX 4.3.3. As a matter of fact, HP-UX has some serious problems with
Solaris NFS.
The goal is not to have only one implementation, but one good spec.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Apple do it?
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:42:26 +0100
"Lars Träger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> So even *if* he didn't say it, it's *still* his fault.
Sorry but I think that you are wrong on this account (about it being Bill
Gates fault), despite what he may or may not have said.
If you look at BIOS messages [well before the OS is in the equation] when a
PC boots you see things like that:
640k Base Memory size
xxxK Ext. Memory size
>From http://www.infokomp.no/info/DosMem.htm
"When IBM designed the original PC, they reserved the upper 384KB of this
1MB for the PC BIOS (Basic Input/Output System), video memory, and for
adapter boards to install additional RAM, allowing applications to write
directly to added RAM in order to communicate with the adapter. This left us
with 640KB for DOS and application programs."
> Lars T.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Christian Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:43:42 +0100
Stuart Krivis wrote:
> "Linux" does not have SysV inits. Some Linux distros do. I haven't
> looked at Slackware in a long time, but it used to be a BSDish system
> with a Linux kernel and a GNU userland.
>
> RedHat feels more AT&Tish, as does Debian. However, there are still
> significant BSDisms in Linux. Even Solaris has some BSDisms by
heritage.
The major Linux-Operating-Systems keep close to the LSB- and
FHS-standards. So does
Slackware, Debian, Suse and RedHat. In 2001 I expect to see a working
SysV-Startupsystem in
/etc/rc.d/ in all major Linux-Operating-Systems.
> Unixware is probably the best example extant of an AT&T SysV Unix. It
> has the most "pure" bloodline in many ways.
Well, this doesn=B4t actually have any influence outside the unremarkabl=
e
Unixware-Community.
AIX5.0 claimed to keep compatible to Linux-APIs and maybe AIX5.x will
stick to LSB and FHS
more closely. After BSD and SysV now the Linux-Kernel-API, FHS and LSB
seem to change
Unix-Standards at a much higher Level.
Christian Brandt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: 14 Mar 2001 11:00:50 GMT
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:46:12 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:27:45 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Isn't the main reason for gcc 3 to get gcc to be compliant with the
>standard?
Yes, g++ is way off (for example, doesn't support sstream and namespace
std does not work). Also, they need to get gcc up to C '99.
The other thing they want to do is stabilise the ABI and that requires them to
get the standard library right.
As a C++ programmer, I am looking forward to the gcc 3.0 release.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: 14 Mar 2001 11:04:35 GMT
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:27:45 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>> Unless you use templates heavily...then you can just put everything into
>> the headers and wait until tomorrow for it to compile.
>
>I haven't noticed that problem in Visual C++, Borland C++, and in
>gcc-2.95.2 with STLport.
Maybe you haven't tried using templates with several instantiations/.
They can result in a lot of compile overhead if you're not careful. They
can also result in proliferation of dependencies which yu need to
bypass using various "compiler firewall" tricks.
>> I actually don't dislike C++ that much, but using a language that's
>> changing at warp speed is always a challenge. Maybe things will settle
>> down now, since there is a standard and all.
>
>You mean like with Java <grin>. I think C++ is pretty settled right
>now... especially gcc -- when the HELL is gcc 3 coming out!!!???
The language definition is settled, but the implementations are stil
catching up. As for gcc, it will be released when it's ready, like
any other C++ package. Believe me, you're not the only one who's
eagerly awaiting the release !
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: 14 Mar 2001 11:07:04 GMT
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 05:35:01 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>Whatever. you scream "alpha" but in fact it is fully
>functional, fully supported, and works wonderfully.
"fully supported" by whom ? I'm not trying to be alarmist,
I'm only taking the authors at their word when wthey acall it
"alpha" and post all kinds of dire warnings on their websiet.
>> (2.96 ? No such release. 2.96 was the code name for the CVS
>> snapshot that Redhat pretended was a legitimate release)
>
>Cygnus was a division of RHAT last time I checked.
gcc is not a cygnus product, though they've contributed.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot 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
******************************
