Linux-Advocacy Digest #229, Volume #33 Sat, 31 Mar 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dying (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro (Rick)
Re: Linus for a 386???? (Mike Chase)
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (GreyCloud)
Re: NOTICE: Internet Cleaning (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (Mats Olsson)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (Scott Erb)
Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:41:36 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:04:32
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:53:39
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:21:09
>> >> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 03:58:22 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >MS also extended Java for java developers who ONLY wanted to
>> >> >> >develop on the Windows platform. MS didn't force anyone to
>> >> >> >do anything. They just published tools to help developers
>> >> >> >who wanted to develop for Java, and only for Windows and
>> >> >> >wanted to take advantage of Windows features.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This was in direct violation of their contractual agreements with
>> >> >> Sun and the Java consortium. Making extensions to Java that were
>> >> >> platform specific were direct violations. Which is, of course,
>> >> >> why Sun succeeded in it's lawsuit against Microsoft.
>> >> >
>> >> >Which basically resulted in MS putting in a compiler switch to
>> >> >allow you to turn off the JDirect extensions.
>> >> >
>> >> >Big whoop.
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm. Seems to me I recall a very large settlement (judicial seal
>> >> prevents us from knowing how large), and Microsoft's agreeing never to
>> >> develop Java. Woop.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> T. Max Devlin
>> >> *** The best way to convince another is
>> >> to state your case moderately and
>> >> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>> >
>> >MickeySoft paid Sun $20,000,000.
>>
>> I would expect, as typical, that this is a report of a speculation. The
>> figure is undisclosed, and is actually undiscoverable, AFAIK, unless you
>> have an army of accountants and unlimited access to Microsoft's books
>> (and you'd still need brass balls, because you'd *still* be
>> speculating.)
>
>Its quite simple Max. goto http://www.sun.com ... its where I read it.
>The sum was disclosed there.
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2001-01/sunflash.20010123.1.html
You are correct, apparently, though I still have my doubts. I can't
really see any sense in the idea of being 'too skeptical' when it comes
to Microsoft.
--
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:43:33 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
>"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >[...]I would rather have a PC on my desk at work running
>> > Linux than any Sun workstation.
>>
>> Doesn't Solaris run linux binaries anymore?
>
>Natively, I don't *think* so.
>A simple recompile should fix it, however.
>Beside, isn't Solaris based on BSD? BSD has a linux compatibality layer, I
>would be surpised if Solaris didn't have one.
Not anymore. SunOS 4 (Solaris 1) was BSD-based, but SunOS 5 (Solaris 2)
was overhauled, and is now System V-based.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:45:52 -0500
Warren Bell wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > WesTralia wrote:
> > >
> > > Warren Bell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > With all the stuff I'm hearing about Windows XP and the WPA, that will
> > > > require you to have MS activate your PC after makeing any hardware
> > > > changes, makes me wish there was somthing out there to compete with
> > > > Windows. I mean really compete.
> > > >
> > > > Linux is a great OS and is getting better all the time, but the average
> > > > computer user won't want to use it. What I think Linux needs is a
> > > > light, user freindly version that anyone can use. Somthing that's
> > > > stripped of most of the server functions and is made for a single or
> > > > multi user home system. Somthing that even the untechnical user can use
> > > > without too many problems. Here are some things that I think would be
> > > > needed to make this work:
> > > >
> > > > - A standard GUI that all Linux distros could use.
> >
> > What do you mean by standard? Any distro can use any GUI.
>
> I know, and there's a lot of them. Windows has a common GUI. You know
> what to expect when you jump on any windows computer. When you start
> mixing GUIs it gets confusing. It also seems more grounded if there's
> one set GUI. If Suzie's manager at work set up all the machines with
> fvwm and she has KDE at home it's going to be confusing for people.
>
Then dont mix GUIs. Standardize on one.
> > > > - A GUI that's feels lighter and faster.
> >
> > Faster and lighter than what? I use fvwm2 with GNOME and KDE libs/apps.
> > Its pretly light and snappy.
> >
>
> Yeah that is. But it doesn't looks as klean and together as KDE ore
> Gnome. But I just upgraded my machine to the latest XFree86 and KDE2. I
> stand corrected. It runs pretty sweet.
>
Why doesnt fvwm2 look as clean as GNOME or KDE? You can use one set of
libs/apps and have a consistent interface if you desire.
> > > > - All the most used admin (root) functions available from point and
> > > > click.
> >
> > Since Im not a sys admin, I may be wrong, but arent three GUI tools for
> > most fo those things?
> >
>
> Yeah but they don't work flawlessly yet. But they're getting there..
>
> > > > - All makers of the lighter distro to follow standards so all the
> > > > distros are similar.
> >
> > If all the distros are similar, why have different distros?
> >
>
> I think we should still have different distros for the regular users,
> but maybe a light, easy version for somthing untechnical people can use
> now. Somthing fool proof that can give Windows a run for it's money.
> Maybe a Winux if you will :)
>
Corel. Mandrake.
> > > > - Of course, more programs that people need for everyday use.
> >
> > They're coming.
> >
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to see Linux come out with somthing that would really compete
> > > > with windows and give people who arn't tech savvy a choice. Any
> > > > thoughts on this? Any distros that are trying to move twards an OS like
> > > > this?
> >
> > Mandrake is one of the easiest around to install and use.
> >
> > >
> > > Sounds to me that you are describing the Mac OSX. I haven't used it or
> > > even seen it in "person" but I like the idea of the Aqua GUI, Unix kernel,
> > > and the fact that you can use either the command line or the GUI for real
> > > work.
> > >
> >
> > From many reports, MacOS X is really for leading edge people at the
> > moment. By summer it should have the consumer bugs worked out.
> >
> > > I just wish the Mac people would port OSX to the PC and sell the OSX separately.
> > >
> > > In fact, that's my quiestion for the day: why don't they?
> > >
> >
> > Becasue Apple makes most of its money from hardware. They have
> > historically had great OS's and expensive hardware with big profit
> > margins. If they port to x86, the hardware sales go away.
> >
> > --
> > Rick
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Mike Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus for a 386????
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:55:54 +0100
BoogerT wrote:
> I have a 386 with a 41 meg harddrive and 8 megs of RAM. What would be a
> good linux distro for this machine which would allow me to access the
> Internet,
> too? If there is one, where would I get it and do documents come with it?
> Thanks in advance,
I've had pygmy linux running on a 386 with 40 meg hd and 4 megs of ram. I
didn't try x with that (not a lot of point really). But for just a console
setup this was very easy to configure with very good help files which are
loaded with the installation. Go for it. I got a whole set of small linux
distros on a cd from cheapbytes with some very interesting stuff on it.
--
Mike Chase
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:45:27 -0800
Agent wrote:
>
> > > >J Perry Fecteau
> > > >Former 6-time Mr. Internet
> > > >http://perry.fecteau.com/
> >
> > From what I'm seeing of Sun the last two weeks they've held pretty solid
> > on the market.
> > Sun hasn't been resting on their laurels. They have introduced the sun
> > blade 100. 64-bit processing for $950. 500 Mhz sparc IIe with 128Mb ram
> > upto 2Gb. I highly doubt Sun will disappear from the market place, but
> > will instead keep growing. It'll be awhile before MS comes out with
> > their 64-bit O/S, which isn't available now. Also the itantium
> > processor from intel is still having problems. It was supposed to be
> > out last August, but its still in very limited quantities. Linux has
> > IA-64 version ready for it, and HP has reportedly developed a UNIX
> > version for it. The bad part of the Pentium IV right now is its heat
> > dissipation... 54 watts. Yet the sparc chip doesn't dissipate that much
> > power. With the rolling black outs and the political push to conserve
> > power, intels going to have a temporary image problem.
>
> First, Sun Sparc is basically a RISC Architecture and Intel is a CISC
> Architecture (eventhough both have barrowed others Ideas..!) CISC puts lots
> of functions(like mupltiply,divide) into one CHIP (complex) and frees up
> Compiler & higher level writing. and RISC does the opposite. With that RISC
> can multiply Hardware wise very fast with less heat dissipation. That's why
> you can have Sparc with 50-100 processors easily. But, writing a compiler is
> very complex for RISC.
>
Only have to do the compiler design and make it a finished product.
After that the programmer using say C or C++ doesn't get his nose dirty
in the RISC stuff. Yes, it is somewhat more complex to write the
compiler and libraries, but after that its a downhill ride.
> As a crude comparison, a 4-processor 64 bit RISC (1) is roughly equals to
> single processor 64-bit CISC (2) !! Now for a given unit of work, both (1) &
> (2) will take the same time !
>
Currently the Alpha will blow the doors off the Pentium IV. But Compaq
has deemed that you should pay a high price for it when its not
necessary. The RISC cheaps are easier to make and cost less.
> The advantages of RISC is it has an excellent Pipeline Architecture
> (parallel processing) which if the upper level compiler & language can take
> advantage(they call Scale-up). This is very good for high-end complex
> processing, but has a single point of failure(E-bay !!)
>
> CISC Achieves the same by Parallel systems (Scale-out). This is (many
> systems in cluster form) very complex to manage, but as the S/W field
> advances, this becomes less burdun.
>
> So, a RISC 64-bit OS with Clock speed cannot be compared to a CISC 64-bit
> with the same clock speed.
>
> varadhg
If you take and break down these CISC instructions and rewrite them
using RISC instructions, you can make the program run faster.
Universities have researched this, and also an article appeared in the
early 80's about RISC instruction sets vs. CISC.
What you assert has already been proven false. The IBM/Motorola venture
and produced the PPC chip. The 500 Mhz chip (PPC) in an Apple is
equivalent to a 1 Ghz. or 1.5 Ghz Pentium when an actual application is
running. Even the Apple cube doesn't require a cooling fan.
There are many RISC processors out there, HP PA-RISC, IBM 603-604 series
RISC, MIPS, Sparc, Alpha and a few others I can't recall. Intel is the
only one I know of still clinging to CISC ideas.
The list goes on. Why do you think so many computer companies have
favored RISC then?
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: NOTICE: Internet Cleaning
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:50:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Everett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 31 Mar 2001 01:50:11 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>*** Attention ***
>
>It's that time again!
>
>As many of you know, each year the Internet must be shut down
>for 24 hours in order to allow for cleaning. The cleaning process,
>which eliminates dead email, inactive ftp and www sites, and
>objectionable material allows for a better-working and faster
>internet.
>
>This year, the cleaning process will take place from 12:01pm
>on Apr. 1st until 12:01pm on Apr 2nd. During that 24-hour
>period, five powerful Internet-crawling robots situated around the
>world will search the Internet and delete any old and objectionable
>data that they find.
>
>In order to protect your valuable data from deletion, consider
>doing the following:
>
>1. Install a file in your home directory named ".no_robots" .
>
>2. Refrain from accessing the Internet during the scheduled
>cleaning times as collisions with the internet-crawling robots
>will hinder the cleaning process.
>
>3. If you encounter one of the cleaning robots, stop typing and
>don't touch your mouse until the robot has moved on.
>
>Although this may prove to be an inconvenience to some Internet
>users, any inconveniences will be more than made up by the
>increased speed and efficiency of the Internet once it has been
>cleared of electronic flotsam and jetsam.
>
>Thank you,
>
>The Internet Cleaning Center
And remember, Microsoft Windows has the best Internet
Defragmentation Utility on the Planet. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I wonder if that "objectionable data" includes
porn sites... :-)
EAC code #191 54d:21h:21m actually running Linux.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mats Olsson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: 31 Mar 2001 19:54:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Agent wrote:
>> First, Sun Sparc is basically a RISC Architecture and Intel is a CISC
>> Architecture (eventhough both have barrowed others Ideas..!) CISC puts lots
>> of functions(like mupltiply,divide) into one CHIP (complex) and frees up
>> Compiler & higher level writing. and RISC does the opposite. With that RISC
>> can multiply Hardware wise very fast with less heat dissipation. That's why
>> you can have Sparc with 50-100 processors easily. But, writing a compiler is
>> very complex for RISC.
>>
>
>Hate to burst your bubble, but modern "RISC-based" CPUs are indistinguishable
>from modern "CISC-based" CPUs.
Almost indistinguishable. The "CISC" ones have a CISC->RISC translation
stage when code is loaded from memory. Costs a bit, but nowadays more than
offset by being on the leading edge process wise.
/Mats
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:54:37 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 31 Mar 2001 04:14:08
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Exactly how do you imagine a separate library that existed before
>> >the GPL'd component would become 'derived from' this GPL'd
>> >component if they happen to be linked together at some future date?
>>
>> The same way you imagine that software has functional purpose but is
>> still covered by copyright.
>
>I can't parse any meaning at all out of that. A cookbook has functional
>purpose but is not exempt from copyright.
The recipes *in* the cookbook have no functional purpose, nor does the
book itself. They may have functional value (another, related concept
I've used, which may have confused you if you didn't recognize that they
are distinct), but they have no functional purpose. Software has
functional purpose: it "runs", it "does something". If it does not
execute and perform the intended functions, it is "wrong".
>> >Yet the GPL prohibits distribution of GPL'd components that link
>> >to anything but standard system libraries. What really happens is
>> >that each part does it's own work independently, just like a literary
>> >or research work that refers to some other independent work that
>> >you are expected to read to understand the whole context - and
>> >each work may have its separate terms for obtaining the right to
>> >use it.
>>
>> If the part were 'doing its own work', then it wouldn't require other
>> parts to do work for it, would it?
>
>Imagine two jugglers who sometimes throw their balls to each
>other. Is one juggler derived from the other? Will the act work the
>same if the other isn't there to throw the ball back at the right time?
If I'm not mistaken, one can copyright a juggling performance, but one
cannot copyright a juggler. Is the juggler's performance "derived" from
the other juggler's performance? It seems so to me, and to the courts,
as both jugglers will share all rights to whatever act they develop.
And should one of them go on to bigger and better things, any act which
he develops in the future which is based on the original act is, in
fact, derived from it, yes.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Scott Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:15:43 -0500
Strabo wrote:
> > That's a tad simplistic. Human nature is not necessarily incompatible
> > with socialism or communism, but Marxian communism ignored culture and
> > politics in its focus on economic determinism. It also, in its
> > Leninists variants, saw the state as being able to enforce a complete
> > change in society, something that does indeed lead to tyranny. If any
> > kind of socialism is ever to be achieved, it will have to be democratic
> > and chosen, not enforced. I suspect that is still generations away.
>
> You can have benign absolute rule but once started
> down this path, malignancy soon sets in.
True...there does seem to be an aspect of human nature that makes it
corruptible when people have power over others.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:57:53 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:03:16 -0500;
[...]
>> I disagree on the desktop argument. By serving install fests in our
>> local mall, our organization has made it public that there is an
>> alternative to microsofts o/s. Many people aren't aware of Linux
>> because no one has enough money to advertise Linux during prime time
>> TV. Many people that had actually took a test drive of Linux at the
>> mall were really impressed and wanted to know how much it cost. We tell
>> them they even have another alternative in Linux: download it for free
>> or purchase at low cost a distribution. We have shown RedHat, Suse,
>> Caldera, Mandrake, and Slackware as the various distributions.
[...]
>I would be willing to bet money that a similar "install fest" at the same
>mall where you put up a booth giving out the latest build of Linux and
>Microsoft showed up giving out WindowsXP when it's released, the XP line
>would be around the block, and the Linux line would be about 1 guy deep and
>4 guys wide.
You seem to have missed the point, not that anyone's surprised.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:02:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jon Johanson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 19 Mar 2001 08:27:07 -0600
<3ab6169b$0$44575$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Electric Ninja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Wpht6.28385$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> For getting work done I love Win2000 like a charm but I'm scared to death
>to
>> have something like that running one of our aircraft carriers.
>
>Why? It works as well as any other server OS...
You mean it doesn't work better?!
Talk about damning with faint praise! :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 54d:22h:35m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
