Linux-Advocacy Digest #146, Volume #33 Tue, 27 Mar 01 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dying (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dying (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (Barry Manilow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:04:45 GMT
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 27 Mar 2001
>David Brown wrote:
>>
>> GreyCloud wrote in message
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >David Brown wrote:
>> >>
>> >> There are three points that people here seem to have missed while calling
>> >> each other names instead of looking at the facts. First, NT can handle
>> >> floppies sensibly - you can use the machine while it is accessing a
>> floppy.
>> >> Win9x still uses DOS to access floppies, and thus stops almost entirely.
>> >> Second, NT can multi-task reasonably well, while Win9x is based on a
>> >> task-switching OS with added hacks - it is never any good at doing
>> several
>> >> things at once. Third, NT has a much better threaded version of
>> explorer -
>> >> long operations (like formating, or big copies) are always done in a
>> >> seperate thread, while Win9x has basically a single-threaded explorer -
>> it
>> >> *always* stops while waiting for a long operation (you need to start a
>> new
>> >> copy of explorer to keep on working).
>> >>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Doesn't really matter. NT was designed by Dave Cutler in the beginning.
>> >He was also the architect of VMS in the 70's. I respect Daves' ability
>> >to design and build O/Ses. However, no matter how you slice it, in
>> >order to format a floppy disk you need to consume CPU cycles. The
>> >software that reports the CPU useage may in fact be buggy or not
>> >reporting it accurately enough. An MSCE told me that you can't trust
>> >NTs' CPU monitor program and to download a free one from another site.
>> >Now if the utility could report 0.0001% CPU useage for that format
>> >process then at least you'd know its impact on the system. Giving a 0%
>> >useage report is meaningless, knowing that a format is in progress.
>> >
>>
>> Most people on this thread are not quibiling about a few percent CPU use, or
>> how accurately it is monitored. One side is claiming that formating a
>> floppy is effectively a background operation, and does not interrupt your
>> use of the machine (whether it takes 2% or 10% or 0.01% does not really
>> matter), which is true of NT. The other side claims that it effectively loc
>> ks the machine (whether it takes 90% or 95% or 99.999% does not matter
>> either), and this is true of Win9x - in particular, it completly locks the
>> explorer process used to start the format.
>
>What my experience tells me is that under Windows 9x
>formatting a floppy locks the machine for any useful
>purpose, while under windows NT formatting a floppy is
>hampered by other CPU activities.
Well, I'm afraid you've gone too far. Played into their trap, as it
were, perhaps that's why they make such fantastical claims themselves.
The problem is the same as always. Software is, despite a great deal of
complexity, a supposedly deterministic activity. All effects have known
causes, all forces are completely quantified. So when dealing with
software, it should be entirely possible to ignore the distinction
between an instance and a class of some software execution and
subsequent operation. In other words, whether a particular OS slows to
a crawl while performing a certain action is something that either
always or never happens, given sufficiently defined circumstances. Such
would be the case, for instance, if Linux slowed to a crawl while
formatting a floppy.
But here we're dealing with something which isn't quite the same as what
one would naturally construct from such an understanding of the term
"software". I call it "monopoly crapware", clearly identifying both its
specific and its ultimate effect and substance. It is entirely
proprietary, and indeed even if one new every detail of "it" perfectly,
one would be ignorant, for "it" can be changed unilaterally, and even
subversively. It cannot be clearly shown to be defective, for there is
no similarly functional alternative to compare it to. Quite
importantly, it cannot be considered to do what a similarly functional,
but fully operational non-monopoly crapware version in software could
do, for it doesn't need to do more than *appear* as if it could do what
is promised, and even then only unreliably and with complete "plausible
deniability" for any failure whatsoever, and so correct comparisons are
entirely impossible.
So what we're left with is the fact that WinDOS *can*, in fact, format a
floppy without blinking an eye, let alone grinding to a standstill. I
know, I've just done it. (With Win95b, though it was on an 850 MHz
Athlon.) Alas, we are still left with the question of whether it
*will*, and I know that there are some circumstances in which it will
not. Unfortunately, being monopoly crapware, I've little chance of
determining what circumstances they are, specifically, and so whether or
not, in any arbitrary circumstance, Windows (any version) will grind to
a halt when asked to format a floppy is a question for the ages. Being
statistically minded, the ages no doubt would reply "maybe, if you're
lucky, but what choice do you have?"
>Under NT if the CPU is
>loaded by other tasks formatting often fails to complete
>properly. The same holds true if under NT you perform low
>level floppy operations such as copying a disk image to
>floppy: if the CPU is loaded by other activities, you get
>undocumented error messages and the operation is aborted. If
>you do the same under light load conditions, it works
>properly. I'm afraid that the "modified microkernel"
>technique, which AFAIK is the reason why Dave Cutler left
>Microsoft, has something to do with that.
Yea. Could be.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:04:45 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 24 Mar 2001 16:48:06
[...]
Wow! I can see why they nominated you for #1 Windroid, Jan.
>All in all, I'd say you have never even seen a windows pc.
You gotta wonder, when you have to reduce your argument to such
absurdity...
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:04:46 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 25 Mar 2001 14:56:05
>"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...MS-FUD(tm) snipped...]
>> How? If I have a Linux network up and running and want to add a Windows
>> machine, do I add software to the Linux side or the Windows side? I
>> usually run SAMBA on Linux when I have a Linux/Windows mix. What is the
>> MS equivalent of SAMBA?
>
>Put it another way - why would NT need SAMBA?
[...]
That would be an NFS server, Charles. Not a very popular market, I
don't think you'd find more than a couple token implementations.
Needless to say, Windows doesn't provide the reliability or performance
that is necessary to run an NFS server.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:04:47 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 27 Mar 2001 03:58:22
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >if they make an extension, it's usually for the betterment of the
.. .monopoly
>> >protocol.
>>
>> So, you agree that MS _does_ extend standards.
>
>On occasion, but usually for good occasions.
>
>For example, XML. The XML standard is evolving WAY WAY too slowly
.to ensure .NET does its job of locking all application markets
>and it seems that MS was the only one willing to take matters
.past the bound of reason and into the area of illegal activity
>into their own hands. They continued development, continued
.to monopolize, force crapware on everyone, and raise prices
>developing new features and turning them into the worthless W3C
.who rubber-stamped them as usual. MS's grip is a firm one
>who couldn't keep up with MS. MS' XML parser was the first to
.become welded into the monopoly OS, and it will be the last
>fully implement XML Schema, they had one of the first fully
.integrated web browsers, though of course they can't use Java
>functional XSL and XSLT implementations and helped further the
.assimilation of all communications and content into Gate's wealth,
>standard for everyone involved. XML wouldn't be where it is
.in .NET if it didn't provide such a rich opportunity for
monopolization.
>today without much of the help from MS.
>
>Another example is SOAP. MS has contributed significantly to
.deterioration in implementations of that, and others technologies.
>SOAP, WSDL, DISCO, UDDI and similar technologies.
>
>MS also extended Java for java developers who ONLY wanted to
.develop for the Windows market. MS didn't let anyone
>develop on the Windows platform. MS didn't force anyone to
.do anything but either cut their own throats, or cut Java
>do anything. They just published tools to help developers
.undermine Java's scope and popularity, by lies and fraud
>who wanted to develop for Java, and only for Windows and
.wanted to limit their market and profitability as much as possible
>wanted to take advantage of Windows features. Sun bitched and
.took them to court. They won, too, but MS pissed and
>moaned because, god forbid, anyone would ever want to actually
.know why Microsoft made such counter-productive decisions but
>USE Java to do anything productive, and god forbid do it
.legally.
>QUICKLY.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:04:48 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:25:01
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 03:43:51 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Like set-top boxes,
>> >
>> > Well, MS hasn't really ventured into this space. The closest they
>> > have is WebTV which was an acquisition.
>>
>> Ah, that explains their multi-million dollar investment in AT&T and the
>> subsequent announcement that AT&T were going to use WinCE in some fraction
>> of their set-top boxes (which fraction kept getting reduced as time went on,
>> BTW). It also explains the dust-up with TCI over Java in set-top boxes.
>> MS has been after the set-top box market for years, you just haven't been
>> paying attention.
>>
>> Basically, nobody in the embedded space really wants WinCE or NT.
>
>You have no facts to back this statement up.
>
>
>> > I don't know about this, but Embedded NT and 2K seem to be doing
>> > well.
>>
>> There is no "Embedded 2K" product.
>
>Yes there is. It's not shipping yet, but it is in development
>and is being tested by several 3rd parties. Just because you
>don't know about it, Bob, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
>Please try pulling your head from the sand once in a while,
>it helps.
>
>-c
>
Say it with me guys:
GUFFAW!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:04:50 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:39:10
[...]
>> >Win9x sucks, though, we've already established that. That's why MS is
>> >ditching it and going with WinXP which is based on the NT/2K kernel.
>>
>> Yes, but we've already established that NT, 2K, and XP all suck, too.
>> That's the problem.
>
>Just refering to win9x series... I claim here as I have earlier that I
>don't know anything about NT. I leave that to others. But, considering
>MS track record of reliability, their credibility is in grave doubts
>here.
Yes, that's a very wise position to take, obviously. NT is, indeed,
much more stable as an OS than DOS, and 2K does improve on that, as
well. But I assure you the only reason anyone would consider NT or 2K
"reliable" is if they've never seriously used anything *but* WinDOS.
You know how horrid that is. So its no surprise, hmm, that NT or 2K is
'the bee's knees' for the Windroid, given the comparison.
I said before that NT is more stable *as an OS*, because the point is,
as a *platform*, its every bit as unreliable as any other Windows. And
this, of course, is where the bad design of Windows really shines. NT,
of course (including W2K and XP) doesn't fall over every time an
application coughs up a lung, like WinDOS does. But it does crash,
bomb, freeze, lock, wedge, glitch, or otherwise require a
re-initialization (to arbitrary extent) on a routine basis.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:04:51 GMT
Said Chad Everett in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 27 Mar 2001 04:16:40
>On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 03:54:40 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>But then... you're not interested in facts. [--SNIP--]
>
>I am VERY interested in facts...please give us some about the beta XP.
> ^^^^^
Here's a fact. The "miscellaneous" problems Mr. Myers hinted at which
delay XP's release are, in fact, manifestations of the horridly
disfunctional design of Active Directory. Microsoft is in a *major*
pickle, and the fact that Active Directory doesn't work (and, yes, in
such a thing, to not be as functional for the huge customer as for the
small is to "not work") could easily drop the bottom out of their
enterprise "strategy", if such a pathetic and doomed effort could be
said to have a "bottom".
OK, so they're not really facts, but suppositions. Do with them as you
will; they're free of charge or obligation.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:04:52 GMT
Said Brent R in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:40:58 GMT;
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >>
>> > >> MS wants out of the operating system business, hence we see .NET.
>> > >
>> > >No, MS wants to make the OS irrelevant. They want the decision
>> > >in buying an OS not really matter. That way, people will by
>> > >Windows just because it runs .NET better, but their main motivation
>> > >will be in buying the best .NET Server for their services.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Of course, none of Microsoft's HailStorm and .NET strategies have anything
>> > at all to do with providing users with better products or computing power
>> > and use, it's all about getting more control to Microsoft.
>>
>> WATCH OUT! HERE COME THE BLACK HELIOCOPTERS!
>>
>> > Will .NET benefit users: no.
>>
>> Let's see, getting real time flight information, being able to notify
>> my loved ones 30 minutes before I land so that they can come pick me up,
>> being instant messaged when I'm outbid on an auction, getting real-time
>> customer support chat with an American Express customer support
>> representative...
>> nah, that doesn't benefit the consumers at all!
>>
>> -c
>
>Why do you need .NET for those things?
Because otherwise his buddy Bill won't let him have them.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:04:53 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:36:17
-0800;
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > Let's see, getting real time flight information, being able to notify
>> > my loved ones 30 minutes before I land so that they can come pick me up,
>> > being instant messaged when I'm outbid on an auction, getting real-time
>> > customer support chat with an American Express customer support
>> > representative...
>> > nah, that doesn't benefit the consumers at all!
>>
>> Online session:
>>
>> Please press the "Retrieve" button, Chad Myers, to
>> notify your loved ones of your imminent arrival in Austin.
>> Note that .NET will deduct $2.50 from your Passport account.
>> If you do not wish to avail yourself of this service,
>> then press Cancel, and you will be billed only $0.25
>> for .NET access.
>>
>> Too bad he didn't just e-mail them with his Palm Pilot.
>> Oh yeah, his palm is worn out.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> --
>> [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
>
>ROFLMA!!!
Me too!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:09:21 -0800
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> > >
> > > I have freedom to make as much money as I know how.
> >
> > The problem with this freedom is that this right ends up killing a lot
> > of hard-working, decent human beings. That is why capitalism is a
> > murdering system. It kills millions of people every year in the
> > world.
>
> As opposed to *what*, exactly.
>
> Cuba, North Korea and China are not paragons of virtue.
China is practically a capitalist country right now.
I would venture to say that the Cuban system kills few. Certainly, in
the rest of Latin America, capitalism is a killing machine. At least
Cuba has dedicated itself to the principle that, within its means, it
will try not to kill any human beings due to lack of food, shelter,
medical care, poor sanitation, etc.
Will the US even commit to this? No. Actually, lack of proper
medical care murders 250,000 Americans every year, in one of the
world's richest countries! Most of these are good, hard-working
folks. Why did they have to die? So a relative few could make some
extra bucks. How could anyone defend such a system?
I suppose the idea would be to come up with an economic system that
did not systematically kill so many human beings. Capitalism can be
reformed to the point where hardly kills at all (well-regulated
capitalism, probably the best system so far) but capitalists never
seem to want to do this because by saving lives, they would end up
making less money. Any system with that kind of ideology seems pretty
immoral to me.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
