Linux-Advocacy Digest #260, Volume #33 Sun, 1 Apr 01 22:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Formatting a floppy (Barry Manilow)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Windows "speed" ("David Rheaume")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jay Maynard)
Re: Windows "speed" (Barry Manilow)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Communism (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Multitasking (Barry Manilow)
Re: Windows "speed" (".")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:07:14 GMT
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> > 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?
>
> It does not.
Then by what claim can the FSF say that separately distributing a
'user-does-the-link' kit where the usr obtains his own copy
of the GPL'd material is in any way a violation?
> > Yet the GPL prohibits distribution of GPL'd components that link
> > to anything but standard system libraries.
>
> Exactly. The GPL's terms apply to the GPLed code, not to the separate
> library. If you want to distribute the GPLed code, you must also
> distribute the source code to the entire program under the terms of the
> GPL, including any libraries used by the program (ignoring the GPL's
> exceptions).
What if you don't want to distribute GPLed code, but you want the
user to obtain his own copy and use it by linking it with another
component under either less or more restrictive terms?
> This is an obligation on the distributor of the GPLed
> code, nothing more. If he can't meet this obligation, then he can't
> distribute the GPLed code.
That alone is enough to make the 'free' label a clear deception, but
the FSF's claim of control over things that do not contain a copy
of the covered material is even more problematic. How can
anyone believe these people are reasonable?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Formatting a floppy
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 16:40:12 -0700
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> > GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > : "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> > 8<SNIP>8
> >
> > : I thought I smelled smoke several threads away. :-)
> > : Sometimes its hard to keep the topic of this thread together.
> > : My wifes PeeCee (HP) with an HP scanner and software during a scan
> > : session, is almost unresponsive to a cancel command. You are right
> > : about the hardware side of things regarding the PC hardware and its
> > : performance under loading conditions.
> > : Things just bog down. If I was a rich man I'd probably look into an
> >
> > Indeed they do. What stuck in my craw was the
> > way Mr. "Manilow" was claiming that BeOS's
> > multitasking was "maybe" better than WindowsNT's
Anyone with 1/2 brain knows that BeOS can multitask way better than
Win XX and is way faster too. Not to mention a more advanced file
system (64-bit JFS) and way better mulithreading, a way better GUI, a
way better command-line, way better multithreading, way better
multimedia, and lack of legacy backlog. What I said "maybe" about was
whether Be could do all of the above tasks I stated or not. That I am
not sure of. I know OS/2 and Amiga can. Definitely. I know plenty
of folks who have done it. That is why OS/2 users keep coming back to
OS/2. They leave and then find that they cannot find anything else on
Intel that multitasks better than OS/2. I have heard this stated over
and over.
> > and that OS/2 could run hundreds of applications
> > with absolutely no performance penalties.
Never said there would be no performance penalties. Sure it slows
down. Sure it swaps like the devil. But it stays up and all the apps
keep on running. Can WinXX do this? No. You want a reference to
"hundreds of apps". Try IBM. IBM docs say that OS/2 can run 255
programs at once, assuming you have the memory. A friend took them up
on it and ran a lot more than that. I think it was over 300. Can
WinXX do that? No.
There are limitations to x86 hardware, granted. But great
multitaskers like BeOS, QNX and OS/2 can still do well. And the Amiga
does not run on x86 hardware, Stephen-idiot.
--
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
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:57:46 GMT
Peter K=F6hlmann wrote:
> =
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> >>
> >>I have two IDENTICAL machines at home...one with Linux, one with
> >>Windows.
> >>
> >>The Linux machine is stable. I have tried every hardware swap
> >>imaginable between these two machines to get either
> >>
> >>a) the Windows98 machine to quit crashing, or
> >>b) the Linux machine to start crashing.
> >>
> >>So far, I have yet to discover *ANY* combination of hardware which
> >>improves the reliability of Windows, nor *ANY combination of the SAME=
> >>PIECES OF HARDWARE which provokes Linux to crash.
> >>
> >>I even thought of the possibility that Windows makes the CPU get hott=
er:
> >>The Windows machine even has more fans (about DOUBLE the air-flow rat=
e
> >>through the case).
> >
> =
> Well, well, Aaron,
> now it gets funny. *You* as "Unix System engineer" should know that
> a machine running Win98 (the one your Netscape is running on) *do*
> run hotter than the same machine running linux, because the wintendo-OS=
=B4s
> simply *never* put the processor into HALT. It is running all the time
> full speed ahead.
> =
It is true that Win98 runs the processor pretty much full power.
Unfortunately, it does so even if no user applications are running, only
the OS. The CPU load is still reported as "0" though.
> I would have expected to have at least that basic knowledge from someon=
e
> claiming to have written his own little multiuser/multitasking system,
> another lie from our beloved war hero, who still hasn=B4t figured out h=
ow
> to get rid of his absurd Sig.
> =
> Peter
> =
> --
> Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
-- =
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "David Rheaume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 00:11:50 GMT
I'm sorry, but where do you purchase your crack? NT4 absolutely *flies* on
a P3/600. It flies on a P/200 with 32 MB RAM.
And if you install Win2000 on a P3/600, not only will it outperform Win98 &
Solaris, it'll also boot IP throughput by about 30% over any competing OS.
Anyone who has gotten poor performance from either NT or Win2000 on a P3/600
is suffering from one of the two following reasons:
1. Some component(s) of the hardware platform is not HCL compliant.
2. The installer/administrator is horribly ignorant of the OS and has
misconfigured it far outside the reasonable expectations.
Don't let your ignorance or the ignorance of other convince you that Windows
(the NT kernel) is unreliable.
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Barry Manilow wrote:
> >
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> > >
> > > Barry Manilow wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "T. Mx Devlin" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > NT is
> > > > > certainly faster, and better able to handle I/O and multi-tasking.
> > > >
> > > > I believe it has been shown over and over that NT is about 20%
slower
> > > > than Win 98, which was 20% slower to Win95. WinME has been shown to
> > > > be 10% slower than Win98. Win2K is the slowest of all. A friend
has
> > > > it on a 700 MHZ and it is so slow it is depressing. I just got thru
> > > > using NT on a 600 MHZ with 128 MB and it was quite slow. Like a
> > > > lumbering beast.
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > Hello Barry.
> >
> > Grey Cloud! Wassup my man? LTNS. :)
> >
>
> Been doing medical runs for an Alzheimers facility and med conferencing
> all day long.
> And I'm still up.
>
>
> > That's about what I've read in the microsoft performance
> > > ng.
> > > It just keeps getting slower by each release. Some say Solaris is
slow,
> > > but on my machine as compared to win98, its a lot faster than win98.
> > >
> > Yes it used to be, "Boot Windows, get a cup of coffee". But if this
> > trend keeps going, it'll be, "Boot Windows, go to Colombia."
> > --
>
> From a hardware perspective it'll probably take a Pentium IV to boot XP
> by the way the past trends have been.
>
>
> > 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
>
> --
> V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 2 Apr 2001 00:45:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:07:14 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Then by what claim can the FSF say that separately distributing a
> 'user-does-the-link' kit where the usr obtains his own copy
>of the GPL'd material is in any way a violation?
Because they're trying to patch a big gaping loophole in their attempts to
take over the software world.
>That alone is enough to make the 'free' label a clear deception, but
>the FSF's claim of control over things that do not contain a copy
>of the covered material is even more problematic. How can
>anyone believe these people are reasonable?
Those that do so are either deluded or lying.
------------------------------
From: Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 17:56:45 -0700
David Rheaume wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but where do you purchase your crack? NT4 absolutely *flies* on
> a P3/600.
>
I didn't purchase any crack. I was using it at the public library.
These were machines "donated" by Bill "Dogshit" Gates to the library
for the purposes of brainwashing and indoctrinating the innocent,
ignorant masses. All SW on the boxes was MS SW, of course. There is
an illegal, criminal provision in the contract which forbids the
library from installing Netscape on any of the boxen.
Since the boxes were donated by MS, I assume they were set up
correctly by Redmond. They are 600 MHZ 128 MB 2 GB NT4 boxen and they
are slow and lumbering like drunken rhinos trying to climb out of a
slippery muddy slope. Depressing!
>It flies on a P/200 with 32 MB RAM.
Haha. My sysadmin friends say that OS/2 server serves 200 clients on
the above configuration while NT will not serve even one. What gives?
--
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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 02 Apr 2001 00:58:22 GMT
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
>The clause says "GENERAL welfare" not welfare. PUBLIC ROADS constitute
>general welfare. AFDC, and WIC checks, and special tax breaks are
>*NOT* ***GENERAL*** welfare...they are specific welfare for specific
>individuals. Same thing goes for Social Security.
Depends. A bunch of poor, unemployed or underemployed people with no food or
funds to purchase same, can probably make the general society less comfy.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 01:14:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:45 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
> [...]
>>>>Engaging in a pattern of anti-competitive behavior to gain and hold
>>>>the monopoly *is*.
>>>
>>>And since there *is no other way to have a monopoly* in a free-market
>>>capitalist economy, having a monopoly is evidence of monopolization, and
>>>is therefore unlawful, if not illegal. This is the reason Congress did
>>>not outlaw "patterns of anti-competitive behavior to gain or hold a
>>>monopoly", but simply "monopolization *and attempts to monopolize*"
>>>(emphasis added).
>>
>>A couple of dumb questions:
>>
>>[1] If one assumes that diseconomies of scale don't exist (yes, I know
>> that's a bit far-fetched), then one can easily show that one will
>> eventually get a monopoly, as it's the cheapest method to make
>> the product with no diseconomies of scale. This is not to say
>> that Microsoft is in this situation, though, especially considering
>> the breadth of their product offerings, which include the almost-
>> useless "BOB" to the consumer-level WinME/WinXP to the
>> industrial-grade Win2000 server platforms and Microsoft Office.
>> (At least, they'd like us to believe it's industrial-grade.... :-) )
>
>That seems a rather far-fetched (in fact, well disproved) theory.
Yes, I said that in my parenthetical aside. :-)
>Free
>markets do not "eventually get a monopoly", nor is a single supplier the
>most efficient method of production.
True on both counts, especially considering the dynamism of the markets.
Getting a monopoly on the horse and buggy trade, for example, would
seem laughably ridiculous today. (Although there was that pair who
wanted to get a monopoly on silver...)
I was merely trying to make a point -- and probably failing miserably. :-)
>
>>[2] What's the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful"? Perhaps I'm
>> of a naive, non-lawyerly mindset, but I'm curious. :-)
>
>Something is "illegal" when it is specifically stated in the law, and
>"unlawful" when it is still not. For example, "monopolization" is
>illegal. "Anti-competitive business strategies", which are, in fact but
>not in name, monopolization, is merely unlawful. Generally speaking,
>"illegal" means it is prevented by law, while "unlawful" means it is not
>supported by law.
Which means anything not specifically mentioned in the law is unlawful?
Would this include out-of-wedlock sex, for example? :-)
(Is this a bad thing?)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 55d:23h:41m actually running Linux.
Darn. Just when this message was getting good, too.
------------------------------
From: Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:19:09 -0700
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:41:27 -0500, JS PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Speaking of multi-tasking, I read this thread yesterday and conducted a
> >little test on my Win2K system.
> >Ran a search for *.exe - then when the files found were up to 605 I stopped
> >the search. Selected them all and pressed enter. Ended up with 186 open
> >programs without a hitch. I'm pretty sure the rest opened and closed
> >themselves as command line programs. The system is a dual 500 w/224mb ram.
> >Your incredible Win2K multitasking ability may vary.
> >
>
> This is complete and utter Hogwash. First, if you think this is a valid
> test of multitasking, you need to educate yourself. Next, I did this
> on my Win2K system too. You forgot to mention that when certain *.exe
> files are executed, a dialog comes up stating that the application
> "can't be run in win32 mode". Launching of all other applications
> BLOCKS ON THIS DIALOG until the 'OK' button is pressed. You call that
> multitasking? Additionally, when closing many of those applications
> that you have opened (like via a logout or shutdown), you will get
> additional BLOCKING on dialogs stating that some applications "need
> more time to complete" and proceeding with the entire logout and/or
> shutdown is suspended until you hit the 'OK' button on the dialog.
>
> Man, get a clue!
>
Hahahaha! He's a Windows user and he won't use anything else. Go
easy on him! He actually thinks what you just described is
"incredible multitasking": dialogs being blocked, "can't run Win32"
messages, "app needs more time to complete" messages, etc. They just
need to get out more. Have sympathy on the poor Windows lovers.
--
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
------------------------------
From: "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:20:46 +1200
> I'm sorry, but where do you purchase your crack? NT4 absolutely *flies*
on
> a P3/600.
Can't vouch for this... I consider a default install slow on a Celeron 450.
> It flies on a P/200 with 32 MB RAM.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No wait, I'm not done holding my sides
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I think your crack is of much higher quality than the previous poster's.
And no, I'm not trying to pick you up.
I've used NT, default install, on a P200MMX with 64Mb, and it was a goddamn
dog. Should I have pulled out half my ram to approach the stellar
performance you no doubt get at home on your 386SX?
> Anyone who has gotten poor performance from either NT or Win2000 on a
P3/600
> is suffering from one of the two following reasons:
>
> 1. Some component(s) of the hardware platform is not HCL compliant.
> 2. The installer/administrator is horribly ignorant of the OS and has
> misconfigured it far outside the reasonable expectations.
By your reasoning, as long as my hardware is on the HCL, and I go with a
default install (ie, I don't have the opportunity to misconfigure it) NT
should rip along (as long as I have a 600Mhz P3, no mention of RAM, but I
hear you're a fan of 32Mb, because NT just fuckin RIPS with 32Mb), is that
about the size of it?
> Don't let your ignorance or the ignorance of other convince you that
Windows
> (the NT kernel) is unreliable.
But I should let your ignorance convince me that NT runs really really fast
on an underpowered pentium 200? Trust me, none of the MS advocates with a
clue would ever try and pull that one.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
