Linux-Advocacy Digest #918, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Mar 01 05:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (GreyCloud)
Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux (GreyCloud)
Re: Yet more XBox bogification... (Phil B)
Re: Slackware 4.2 ("David Jordan")
Re: so can Windows do this ? (GreyCloud)
Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it (David Steinberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:38:04 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
> >
> > Andy Walker wrote:
> > >
> > > Jan Johanson wrote in message <3ab419a9$0$48766$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/11929.html
> > > >
> > > >"Lockheed Martin is working on the design of the new US CVN 77 aircraft
> > > >carrier, and Microsoft Federal Systems is to co-operate in the ship's
> > > >information technology architecture. This will, we kid you not, be based on
> > > >Windows 2000. Microsoft Consulting Services will meanwhile chip in with
> > > tech
> > > >support during the ship's software design, development and deployment."
> > > >
> > > >Cause the Navy knows what everyone else already knows, W2K is rock solid
> > > >enough to trust lives to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > This seems to explain why Americans keep hitting friendly troops then....
> > > How about a competition for the first person to knock out the U.S. carrier
> > > with the I love you virus!
> >
> > LOL! FULL SPEED AHEAD! DAMN THE TORPEDOES!! (WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOUR
> > MOUSE POINTER FROZE UP!!)
>
> Unfortunately, the US Navy has a history of trying to deny technological
> reality in deference of emotional favorites.
>
> See: Billy Mitchell sinking a battle ship with a couple of bombs
> dropped from aircraft.
>
> The admirals of the 1920's claimed that Mitchell wasn't "fighting
> fair"....conveniently forgetting that neither does the enemy....
> as they were so DEVESTATINGLY reminded on the morning of Dec 7, 1941,
> when the Japanese destroyed or put out of action more than half of
> the Pacific Fleet's battleships....with aircraft-delivered weapons.
A very strong point indeed!
With China sabre rattling over taiwan, I sure hope our military is ready
for it.
China believes that boundaries are flexible, they give and they take
depending on their situation. When the time is right they will take.
They seem to be very patient in waiting for conditions in their favor.
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> 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.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:30:04 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> Andy Mueller-Maguhn, a leader of Berlin's Chaos Computer Club and also
> Europe's
>> representative on the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
>> Names and Numbers (ICANN), said he believed the German government was
>> probably in damage-control mode. In other words: He thinks the report
>> in Der Spiegel is probably accurate.
>>
>> "You have to remember we have a new U.S. government to think of and
>> it's very sure that no one in the German government wants to hurt that
>> new political relationship," said Mueller-Maguhn, an occasional adviser
>> to government figures.
>>
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> So who cares what this wacko thinks? Who the hell is he? The leader
> of some computer club? ROFL.
>
You canīt read, Chad, right?
There was also mentioned that he is a member of ICANN and advisor to
government.
But beeing a member of Chaos Computer Club is even more important,
in my eyes.
Naturally you donīt know what that is and who those guys are, as you
have shown.
In addition you probably donīt know "Der Spiegel", one of the most
renowned magazines of the world. If they write something, in nearly
all of the cases it is really good researched. *VERY* rarely they got
it wrong.
Peter
>
--
A blue screen is nothing to worry about,
just press [CTRL]+[ALT]+[DEL] and format c:
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 01:22:15 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <va9t6.87051$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Ed Allen wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > In article <cCOs6.82336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > >> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >It's alright, laugh it up. I know you're really just jealous
> > > >> > >because you know that I'm right. You know that the only company
> > > >> > >who really takes Linux seriously (if that's what it really is)
> > > >> > >is IBM, and IBM has a poor track history with desktop and
> > > >> > >small-server OSen.
> > > >> > I suppose that is true if you have a secret definition for
> > > >> > "seriously" like Erik likes to do.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > How many more millions does Intel need to invest to qualify in
> > > >> > your private definition ?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Lets not forget that AMD is encouraging Linux developers to use their
> > > >> > coming 64-bit chips. They don't qualify, why ?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > SGI does not qualify either. Why not ? They are planning to add
> > > >> > their NUMA technology and sell Itanium cluster machines.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Then too, all the universities using Linux to put together their
> > > >> > own Supercomputers are not companies either.
> > > >> > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1113447
> > > >> >
> > > >> > What do you think the graduating students will recommend for use
> > > >> > at their new jobs ?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, a very excellent point!
> > > >
> > > >It's a very common problem.
> > > >
> > > >Universities using archaic or esoteric systems to teach their students,
> > > >and then when the students graduate and get out into the real world
> > > >where companies have to make money, they realize they know nothing
> > > >necessary to compete.
> > > >
> > > >Meanwhile, the intelligent individuals who decided not to waste
> > > >their time on worthless university "computer science", and instead
> > > >decided to learn the hot technologies that pay well and are making
> > > >a fortune and are in high demand, even in today's economy.
> > > >
> > > >Those students may suggest it to their employers, but their employers
> > > >will laugh because they know the truth about linux.
> > > >
> > > I suspected you might ignore my refutation of your false claim and
> > > make another to change the subject, hoping nobody would notice.
> > >
> > > Sorry Chad sock-puppets do not think or write well without their
> > > masters' hand up their butt.
> > >
> > > I don't usually post HTML but this one's for you and I would not
> > > want to strain your little neuron.
> > >
> > > The first one is the *only* link I have seen for a W2K cluster.
> > > It is one tenth as powerful as one of the Linux links beneath it.
> >
> > Not everyone uses supercomputers. For the masses, Win2K is the fastest
> > clustering solution you can buy (or can't buy, as the case may be).
> > See www.tpc.org.
>
> Do "the masses" have $80,000 to spend in licensing fees to get lower
> performance than can be obtained with $100 worth of Linux CD's?
>
> >
> > The Linux clusters are accomplished only by stringing together hundreds
> > of machines. It doesn't speak much about Linux that it's so low-performance
> > that you need to string hundreds of machines to achieve any respectable
> > performance.
>
> Must be why 1-, 2-, 4-, and 8-CPU mother boards always perform BETTER
> when running Linux than when running LoseDOS.
>
> >
> > > The second one explains that Linux clusters are rapidly climbing to
> > > the top of the list of largest supercomputers.
> >
> > So? Stringing together hundreds of boxes isn't something to really
> > be proud of, necessarily.
>
> Can you take 100 80386 boxes destined for the trash bin, and hook
> them together to get supercomputer performance using any WINDOWS
> product?
>
> a) yes
> B) HELL NO!
>
> Can you do this with Linux?
>
> a) no
> B) HELL YES!
>
> Ask the department at the Oakridge, TN nuclear weapons facility which
> needed the throughput of a CRAY supercomputer, but didn't have the funds...
> but were able to build a supercomputer and get the throughput and
> performance they need using nothing other than old 80386 and 80486
> machines collected from the trash-heaps of other departments.
>
And don't forget the NASA BeuoWolf project.
> Let's see you try that with Mafia$oft operating systems
>
> Oh...and notice that Macneil Schwindler Corporation, the vendor of the
> most widely used Finite Element Analysis software is now advertising
> for Linux-people to go around to their most computationally demanding
> customer sites and install:
>
> LINUX CLUSTERS
>
> ...to run their high-end products.
>
> Why is that?
>
> > And even so, they're just competeing with
> > Unix, for the most part. For the rest of the world, there's Windows.
> >
> > > How do you think working on and building clusters big enough to be
> > > ranked among the top 500 supercomputers in the world deserves to be
> > > labeled "using archaic or esoteric systems" ?
> >
> > In terms of how the world uses computing, this is a small portion of it.
> > Granted, it is the largest portion in terms of MIPS, but in terms of
> > people using them, many more people use Windows every day for servers
> > and desktops. Linux is still a niche OS.
> >
> > >
> > > Oil companies, biotech companies, and financial houses are hardly
> > > what I would class as dead end jobs.
> > >
> > > The Linux community is putting together several "Supercomputer On A
> > > CD" distros so these clusters will become more common and the
> > > knowledge of how to put them together and keep them tuned up will be
> > > within the reach of every highschool science club.
> > >
> > > This is the territory Bill is aching about getting in to and Linux
> > > is here first and widening the gap.
> >
> > Not really. Bill goes after the big bucks, not some geeky niche.
> >
> > > I would let someone else show him this list if I were you, he has been
> > > known to spit and throw things when he is unhappy.
> > >
> > > <TITLE>Bookmarks for Chad Meyers</TITLE>
> >
> > It's "Myers", fuckwit.
> >
> > <snip: html post>
> >
> > -c
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> 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.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil B)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet more XBox bogification...
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 02:28:27 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Naylor wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Edwin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jim Naylor wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edwin
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jim Naylor wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edwin
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's no "lying" going on at all. I've seen
> > > > > > > protypes from other game companies. This is
> > > > > > > common practice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Edwin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "I have never outrightly lied on this group in
> > > > > > > spite of whatever you think to the contrary.
> > > > > > > Alright I lied. But except in the case of Macsbug
> > > > > > > and DONK nobody had me dead to rights. I lied. So
> > > > > > > sue me." -- EdWIN Thorne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim Naylor once again trots out his cut-and-paste
> > > > > > creation. He wants to make certain no one will
> > > > > > ever mistake him for one who pocesses morals or
> > > > > > ethics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey EdLOOPS, what's a protype?
> > > >
> > > > Go get an education.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Using words you dont (and nobody else does) undestand?
> > > Tch, tch.
> > >
> > > > > "I have never outrightly lied on this group in spite
> > > > > of whatever you think to the contrary. Alright I
> > > > > lied. But except in the case of Macsbug and DONK
> > > > > nobody had me dead to rights. I lied. So sue me."
> > > > > -- EdWIN Thorne
> > > > >
> > > > If Jim can do it, so can I:
> > > >
> > >
> > > I see you are a liar again.
> > >
> > > > -- I'm a pedophile. I've been locked up for years for
> > > > molesting little boys, but I just can't stop. I wish
> > > > somebody would kill me. -- Jim Naylor
> > >
> > > You might want to ba a little careful about this quote.
> > > It seems very close to libel.
> >
> > I know you realize that the above construction is not a
> > quote, Rick. But your observation is absolutely on. My first
> > reaction was to simply point out the absurdity of it. After
> > sleeping on it, however, I'm wondering if that is adequate
> > with this collection of personas, which behave collectively
> > as if they have total freedom to emerge, lie, duck down
> > while a new one pops out to deny, then pretend that nothing
> > has happened.
> >
> > I'll be getting some legal advice today. Free speech does
> > have its limits, no how many "faces of EdWIN" there are.
> >
>
> Libel is not free speech. Good luck with the legal advice.
>
I'm no lawyer, but FWIW, here are some general guidelines on (US-American)
libel law:
http://www.hg.org/communiintro1.html
Of possible relevance is also an article about libel law in the context of
public Internet forums such as Usenet:
http://www.wsba.org/barnews/tech/greypunkfeb99.html
Here is the conclusion from there:
<quote>
Conflicting holdings notwithstanding, what you find when you look under
the sheets is that parties who are
libeled on the Internet are remarkably like public figures in traditional
libel settings. When they are libeled in
public forums, unlike their private predecessors, they are not victims of
lack of access to the media. In fact,
they can (and frequently do) quickly respond with lengthy point-by-point
refutations of the accusations by
invoking the Supreme Courtđs preferred method of defense. Further, by
"thrusting himself into the vortex"
of public debate, the typical poster crosses the threshold from private
into public figurehood[6] and bears the
heavier burden of proof of the "malice" element of the tort, a standard
that is difficult to meet. It is here that
we find the answer to why there are so few libel cases arising from
Internet discourse.
<end-quote>
>From these (extremely cursory...) readings, it seems to me just off the
top of my head, that one key question would then be whether Edwin's
posting the offending statement twice, and cross-posting it to three
newsgroups in the process the second time, would satisfy the legal
definition of 'malice' in tort law or not, if this condition in fact must
be met in cases involving the Internet as a decidedly public arena.
There is also the aspect, even in light of the second article's findings,
IMO, of there being at least a perceived distinction between the usual
name-calling via the second person (e.g., trading epithets such as 'you
moron', etc...) on the Internet and the attribution of an alleged
quotation to someone using the first person singular with their name
falsely attached to it, since this would tend to more strongly suggest
some kind of factual accuracy or authenticity to a casual observer (e.g.,
that a given 'quote' can be found via Google text string searches...),
rather than it being a simple expression of opinion about another person,
however negative, offensive, or vile such an opinion may be, or seem to
be, which far more clearly has its primary source in the person uttering
the insults, typically.... Whereas most of us typically 'consent' to the
ritualistic name-calling, however tacitly, by simply participating on
these forums (and in many cases returning fire in kind as we do so...),
the latter is correctly perceived, I think, as being a potentially much
more serious matter, given that it is a potentially damaging
misrepresentation of fact, not merely a verbal insult.
Even there, though, the question of whether a person's name has simply
become the equivalent of a virtual mask in the context of Usenet, to which
ultimately no serious legal harm may ever be done here, is one I suppose a
defense lawyer might wish to raise, in the spirit of an extreme nominalist
skepticism trying to create 'probable doubt' in a jury's mind, even when
referring to real, time-stamped posts, sent under real names from real
news server locations. IOW, Usenet is the 'world' where people earnestly
debate over whether the sky is blue, we must force ourselves to recall in
such contexts; in theory, then, it might take forever for the prosecuting
attorney to even establish that 'Edwin' is indeed a legal person or entity
named 'Edwin', who bears full legal responsibility for all his actions
[and is not someone who is criminally insane, for instance...], and etc.,
under such and such circumstances on the 'Net... Sorry, I'm getting a bit
dizzy now; but trying to emulate the thought patterns of lawyers without
the proper training will do that to anyone after awhile, I should think...
%-)
-- IOW, seriously, when was the last time anyone took anything that was
said on these forums seriously?....
The risk of civil damages, as I believe Jim has already noted in the other
CSMA-only thread where this happened, seems to be more that the alleged
'quote' might be taken out of context by lurkers or virtual passers-by
(perhaps even including Jim's boss, or others upon whom his societal
existence relies...) who _may_ mistakenly believe Edwin was actually
publishing a real quote 'signed' by Jim, and etc., and view him with
unwarranted suspicion thereafter, without a full knowledge of the
circumstances (e.g., that Edwin was intentionally posting a blatant
lie...), or worse (e.g., if a vigilante group ever were to show up on
Jim's doorstep prepared to commit assault against the immoral person they
mistakenly believed him to be as a direct result of reading Edwin's
astonishing display of inauthenticity on Usenet... Even the thought in
Jim's mind that this _might_ happen as a consequence of Edwin's posting
such an evidently blatant falsehood about his character, however
unwarranted or even 'paranoid' it may seem at the moment, is enough to
plausibly establish a certain degree of 'emotional distress' in such a
case, perhaps; and it's my understanding that the libel and slander laws
are at least partly intended to help protect citizens from that sort of
'subjective' consequence or 'perceived injury', regardless of whether the
initial action was unintended [or 'negligent'] or openly malicious, too...
But then we get into free speech issues, the consequences of 'too much
political correctness', and all sorts of explosive Usenet topics, don't
we?... Hmmm, better not go there, after all... <g>).
There are some indications (in: Melvin Belli/Allen P. Wilkinson,
Everybody's Guide to the Law, NY: Harper Publ, 1986, p. 300f.), however,
that at least in certain situations outside the Internet, it may not
matter whether anybody actually believes a libel or a slander is true, in
order for its object to have cause for a case in court (so-called 'slander
per se', e.g., where a false statement is patently injurious and offensive
to one's character or social standing, resulting in some degree of
'emotional distress', at a minimum...), although the damages one may claim
to one's reputation in such cases are typically of a lesser degree,
needless to say, particularly if the one uttering a slander or libel is
widely recognized to be nothing but an ignorant fool (and at least
according to King Solomon's wisdom in Proverbs 10:18, that is always the
case when anyone utters a slander, regardless... YMMV...).
It seems to me (an ignorant layperson....), a more general aspect of the
law as it relates to this virtual world we call the Internet (and Usenet,
in particular...), might well be the very basic one of legal jurisdictions
within the established court system.... I note, for instance, that Edwin
is posting from a news server in Germany these days, whereas IIRC, Jim
lives somewhere in the USA. Even if Edwin is an American citizen, and US
laws concerning libel would ultimately hold sway, where would Jim have to
start the appeals process, such that his claims would be able to 'stick'?
How does anyone properly prosecute libel 'across state lines', as it were,
given the current circuit and district court appeals processes in the US,
that would normally have to precede any federal or international
jurisdiction or appeal at all? (X-ref: Kafka.Franz_The_Trial... <g>) Maybe
this is not such a fundamental issue in the law, since I believe there can
be real-world libel suits brought against individuals making injurious
statements in media from other countries, and etc., presupposing local
authorities' willingness to cooperate (and adding a whole other level of
administrative complexity to the legal proceedings, no doubt...), but I
also have to wonder to what extent the location of the ISP is, or can be,
an issue at all, in properly determining which court should hear such a
case in the first place, if at all (and also to what extent any ISP could
ever be held liable for the proliferation of this sort of dreck, as
distinct from a legally responsible editorial staff at a newspaper, or
whatever; thus far, at least, the ISPs all seem rather well-protected by
comparison to other 'media providers', such as publishing houses,
newspapers or television stations, and necessarily so, given the nature of
the 'content' so much of the time, I suppose...)
And etc.
-- Just my long-winded way of saying, 'Go ahead and talk with a real
lawyer and heed his professional advice, Jim'.... I'd be interested in
learning what he had to say, too, to supplant the above ramblings with
more informational content on the subject.
:-)
I also think the wider issues and questions are still quite fascinating to
consider, though, e.g., do the laws of the land regarding torts (incl.
libel) still apply in cyberspace? And, even: _ought_ they to apply here,
ever?
'Net Libertarians of all stripes might very well argue that these laws
(er, statutes...) should not apply, for instance, as they have so argued
in the past, IIRC, viz. that the pragmatic solution to such complex legal
matters is simple, i.e, never use your real name when posting to Usenet so
that no one can ever mis-use it in the first place; this being followed
naturally by a potentially slanderous 'Duh'... Or words to that effect.
And so, yet another off-topic free-for-all on **.advocacy is launched...
<*cough*> inadvertently, of course <*/cough*>
;-)
> > --
> > Jim Naylor
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> Rick
Cheers,
------------------------------
From: "David Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slackware 4.2
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:22:54 +0100
> 95 ? 96 ?
> If not, what version did slackware have out in 95 and in 96 ?
1995 came out Slackware 3.0 called Slack95 (or 96, can't rembember
now) to compete with Windows 95.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: so can Windows do this ?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 01:33:26 -0800
Michael Vester wrote:
>
> Andy Walker wrote:
> >
> > Before this thread descends into arguments about Windows multitasking
> > abilities I'd just like to thank everyone for the info.
> > Now to continue the argument, even my old Amiga 500 is better at
> > multitasking than Windows and that includes NT as well ;-)
>
> I had better luck multi-tasking with DesqView. Does losedos 2k still
> suspend everything while it formats a floppy disk? I know that losedos
> neutered technology 4 would freeze up while formatting. DesqView could
> easily format a disk and do something else. losedos is more like a task
> switcher. Run a cpu intensive app in one window and watch the other ones
> freeze.
>
> --
> Michael Vester
> A credible Linux advocate
>
> "The avalanche has started, it is
> too late for the pebbles to vote"
> Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
Now that you mention it, (Amiga) I had five different independent
windows running graphics animations. I've never seen MS windows do
that.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it
Date: 20 Mar 2001 09:38:32 GMT
<Crosspost to soc.singles removed>
Steve Chaney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Can we say manual updates? Well, at least for now, perhaps. But very
: soon they are likely to try and find a way to do away with this as
: well.
What leads you to believe this?
I thought that companies like Red Hat were going to make money by giving
away the software and charging for the value-added services.
The updates themselves would be part of the the free software, and the
autmated upgrade procedure would be the value added service. This is
nothing new.
Speaking of nothing new, this isn't the first time that unfounded
accusations has been thrown at Red Hat, either.
I see no indication that Red Hat is about to stop providing its software
for free. More importantly, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that
Red Hat is going to stop being a major contributor of Free Software.
That said, Debian is still the distribution that best suits my needs, and
the one that I will continue to use.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
