Linux-Advocacy Digest #406, Volume #33 Thu, 5 Apr 01 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? ("Sam Heads")
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) (GreyCloud)
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) (GreyCloud)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (GreyCloud)
Re: Java (was Re: 696 Native MacOSX Apps So Far -) (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: XP = eXPerimental ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Alex
Chaihorsky")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Alex
Chaihorsky")
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (cjt & trefoil)
Re: Phases (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Roy Culley)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Roy Culley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Sam Heads" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 01:59:49 +0100
I thought I'd expand a bit on the discussion below, and provide a bit of
biological insight, aswell as correct a few errors and misunderstandings.
--
Sam Heads
Palaeobiologist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think Darwin was right, I mean
really
> > right, EVERYTHING works by survival of the fittest.
> >
> No it doesn't. Only biological evolution in a non-controlled environment
> will evolve according to the principles of natural selection.
> Present-day human societies do not follow the principles of natural
> selection (care for the handicapped and the elderly are two very obvious
> examples).
<snip>
SH: You are quite clearly misunderstanding evolution. For a moment, try
to understand that everything evolves. Evolution is not strickly a
biological principle. Wilbert was incorrect by stating that everything
evolves according to natural selection - this is wrong - but you are equally
as wrong in stating that biological evolution depends totally on natural
selection in a non-controlled environment. I presume from this statement
that you have not read "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin? The first
chapter of 'The Origin' is entitled "Variation under Domestication". Here
Darwin discusses human _conscious control_ over evolution. Take agriculture
for example - for centuries humans have _artificially selected_ the plants
and animals with the most desirable qualities and characteristics. They have
then bred the "best" plants and animals together in order to produce crops
and livestock which consistently express the desired qualities and
characteristics. Domestication of household pets - particularly dogs - is
another fine example of concious artificial selection resulting in the
evolution of another organism. Perhaps all involved in this discussion
should view evolution as descent through modification, rather than simply
considering evolution and natural selection as being synonymous. It must be
understood that humans have, under a controlled environment, directed the
evolution of certain species over successive generations of artificial
selection, to produce organisms which may be so different from their
ancestor that they may be considered a seperate species. In this situation,
it can not be denied that evolution has taken place, but under artificial,
_controlled_ circumstances.
>
> > The problem is when we try to understand what "fittest" is. The
"fittest"
> > entity is very hard to predict, even when one is down does not mean it
is out.
> > Sometimes, a small detraction is seen in a creature, but a resurgence
often
> > follows. Think of the Wolf and Coyote in the U.S. Once thought to be all
but
> > gone, are well on their way back. They are natural survivors.
> >
> And how much of that is because of human intervention?
<snip>
SH: The example of Wolf and Coyote reappearance in North America is not
an example of any form of evolution, natural or artificial. It is an example
of a thankfully successful conservation scheme. An interesting point however
was raised - _organism fittness_. Fitness, in a biological sense is very
important. A species' fittness determines it's ability to survive in a
natural environment. Fitness however, is not as fixed as it may seem. For
example, humans are fairly well adapted to our environment (although in
comparison with other organisms, we are particularly poorly adapted).
However, put a human up in space for 4 weeks aboard a space craft of some
sort, and our fitness drops considerably. Humans are hardly adapted at all
for a life in a zero gravity environment. In fact, no organism on Earth is,
simply because every living thing on this planet evolved with gravity as a
significant limiting factor. So, on Earth - in the ocean - a blue whale has
a very high fitness - it is well adapted to its environment. Up in space, on
board a space craft, it has very little fitness at all. Put a blue whale in
the middle of the Sahara desert, and it has no fitness - it is not adapted
at all, and will not survive. Fitness therefore is a measure of an
organism's level of adaptation to its environment and its ability to
function successfully in its niche. Wilbert seemed to suggest that fitness
is hard to detect and quantify - this is not true. When we look at a blue
whale, we can see straight away that it has a high fitness - simply by
looking at the whales body plan we know that it is virtually perfectly
adapted to its environment, and that these adaptations allow it to function
with a high success rate in its niche - streamlined body to reduce drag when
swimming, respiratory opening on the dorsal surface to allow breathing when
surfaced.......... etc.etc. We can also detect and quantify an organisms
lack of fitness. Take the blue whale's ventilation system - it has a gas
exchange system of similar design to all mammals - it breaths, and has
lungs. This is quite obviously a highly inefficient means of gas exchange in
an aquatic environment. Gills are the best means of gaseous exchange in an
aquatic niche. Lungs are one of the worst things to have when living under
water, as they have a tendancy to absorb the wrong gases (nitrogen mostly),
at high pressures (ie, in deep water) and even implode. The reason a whale
still has lungs is because of its terrestrial ancestory - the whale's
closest extant (living) relative is the hippo. They share a common ancestor.
>
> > If you want to get real into the whole darwin thing, the idea of
unregulated
> > everyone for themselves capitalism is very new and unproved. Typically,
tribes
> > or communities would work as a group and trade as a group, this anything
for a
> > buck mentality has always been frowned upon in the past.
> >
> OK, but Darwin's theory has absolutely nothing to do with economics. It
> is a _biological_ theory, which only works because of the absence of
> conscious control.
<snip>
SH: I am not an economist so I cannot comment on any economic theory,
but I must point out that evolution does not rely on the absence of
conscious control, and that it is not solely a biological theory. Darwin
addressed biological evolution, but surely you have heard of inorganic
evolution. The evolution of chemical particles - molecular evolution. Even
the evolution of the biochemical pathways of photosynthesis and respiration
are the result of some initial abiotic evolution of the involved molecules
and reactions. In a natural (uncontrolled) environment, chemical/molecular
evolution occurs much like biological evolution - according to the principle
of natural selection. Nowadays, chemists generate new molecules - synthetic
polymers for example - by artificially selecting molecules with desired
properties, and joining them together to make totally new molecules which
otherwise, would not exist in nature (much like the domestic dog).
>
> > Open source is more like successful human behavior than is the closed
source
> > model. Open Source works on a community level. We as a community share
what we
> > do, and trade on the output of the whole. The Microsoft's of the world
can't
> > hope to compete in the long run. Sooner or later, the sheer number of
open
> > source developers will be able to out produce every software company.
Since we
> > share our results we slowly build a mass of reusable code, where as
companies
> > that come and go never accumulate.
> >
> Fine. I agree with all that. But _please_ use economic models to explain
> and extrapolate, not biological ones.
<snip>
SH: I agree that when addressing economic matters, economic theory
hsould be used to argue and clarify. The point about successful human
behaviour is interesting. It reminds me of an earlier point regarding human
care for the sick and elderly as defying natural selection. This again is
wrong. For starters - human behaviour, like all animal behaviour, is the
result of evolution (yes behaviour and psychology evolve too!). Humans are
primates, and share many primate behavioural traits. Care of sick and
injured individuals etc. is noteable in Chimps and other primates. In fact,
care of the sick, injured and elderly can be seen in many species,
especially where the total population is low, and thus, when survival of the
species depends on it. Such behaviour has even been noted in Tyrannosaurian
dinosaurs - "Sue" - the famous _Tyrannosaurus rex_, suffered a badly broken
femur (thigh bone) during life. If we are of the opinion that care for sick,
injured etc. is not natural, then Sue would not have survived because she
would have starved to death, or been killed by scavengers etc. We know for a
fact however, that Sue did survive, because the femur healed. The only
explaination for this is that Sue was cared for (protected, fed etc.) by
other members of her family group while she was immobile. It was (perhaps
ironically) a bite to the base of her cranium by another _T.rex_ much later
in life, which actually killed her instantly when it crushed her brain stem.
It seems that Karel Jansens is not particularly fond of the use of
biological theory to explain software development - and probably quite right
too! - as software development (evolution?) cannot be explained in
biological terms - simply because it isn't biological!
However, the use of evolutionary theory, both biotic and abiotic, is
applicable, even if used only as comparison. It seemed to me that a lack of
knowledge in the field of evolutionary theory has caused many problems and
misconceptions in this dicussion, and I can only hope that my contirbutions
here have been helpful in clearing them up!
Finally, I cannot comment on whether their are any similarities between
biological evolution and open source software, because I don't know much
about open source - I am hoping to learn however from this news group, as I
do have an interest in software - however limited my actual software
knowledge is.
Best wishes to all,
Sam Heads
Palaeobiologist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Will Linux win? Who knows? Linux is getting a bit long in the teeth, and
2.4
> > was a big effort. Will 2.6 be harder? What about 2.8? 3.0? Can Linux
expand and
> > deal with the advances in technology? Who knows. Can anyone else?
> >
> > My bet is on the UNIX/Open Source model.
> >
> I was under the impression that the terms "open source" and "win" were
> mutually exclusive.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Karel Jansens
> ==============================================================
> "You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
> ==============================================================
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:09:21 -0700
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > In reliable practice... Back around 1965 a navy facility had a large
> > computer system. Each user was given 4k of memory max for their
> > processes. They had on-line about 30 people. It took a while to get
> > things done back then, but it was reliable. Hard to imagine even to try
> > that anymore with such a small memory. No VDTs, just keypunch units and
> > old teletypes.
>
> Back in '80, we replaced an aging machine with a newer one, got rid of the
> teletypes and dropped in terminals. Still used punchcards and cardreaders,
> still had both reel-to-reel and paper tape, and some of the other trappings
> of the older system. Space and CPU time was leased to several companies
> around town, and there were probably 30 to 40 people using the machine at
> any given time.
>
> Then in about '90, the machine was upgraded; it wound up with more RAM. 2Mb
> in total. I don't think it's been upgraded since. Still keeps right on
> chugging along. :)
Yes, the older machines did a fine job. Another Dept. had a Prime
system... had only 4mb memory and about 50 users using televideo
terminals... sort of a hodgepodge of different vendors but it worked.
All they had was Prime Fortran then.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:09:52 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 03:40:29
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 03:00:58
> >> [...]
> >> >Any computer that has a multi-tasking O/S can run over 255 programs...
> >>
> >> In theory or in reliable practice? Any OS but Windows, maybe. Monopoly
> >> crapware, I'm not so sure about.
> >>
> >
> >In reliable practice... Back around 1965 a navy facility had a large
> >computer system. [...]
>
> 'In this here example one did,' is hardly what I call "in reliable
> practice", regardless of how unlikely the one that did seems to be. I
> mean can you guarantee that any and every computer (functioning
> hardware) running Windows will reliably run over 255 programs ever time
> you attempt it without fail? Then you're talking "in theory".
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
How would you know... you weren't there.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:18:45 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 03:31:03
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 02:40:18
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Said nuxx in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:32:59 +0800;
> >> >> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The iPaq has two things over Palm, really. One is that it can play
> >> >> >> MP3's, the other is that it can speak wireless ethernet (by virtue of a
> >> >> >> PC Card slot). Color is a minor thing I think compared to those, and I
> >> >> >> don't think that Palm will let them keep the advantage forever.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The third is that it has a Citrix ICA client available, rather important for
> >> >> >some people,
> >> >>
> >> >> <*sniff*> <*sniff*>
> >> >>
> >> >> What's that I smell? It smells like... <*sniff*>...
> >> >>
> >> >> A monopoly?
> >> >>
> >> >> >also very nice when combined with wireless ethernet. Why
> >> >> >wouldn't Citrix produce a client for the Palm OS if it's technically
> >> >> >feasible (screen resolution)? Makes no sense given their support for other
> >> >> >platforms (Win32, CE, Unix, Linux, Epoc, OS/2 etc) and also Palms strong
> >> >> >market position ... I'm a Palm user myself & this is the only thing it
> >> >> >lacks.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Citrix is an MS sock puppet. There's no *way*
> >> >> they're going to even *touch* the Palm.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Ok... I've got Citrix in Caldera Linux... what the hell do I do with it?
> >> >:-))
> >>
> >> If you don't already know, there's no reason to ask. :-)
> >>
> >
> >I don't know... that's why I'm asking.
> >What is it?
>
> Its a program that allows you to connect to a central server and have
> the server run an application which is displayed on your client. Sounds
> a lot like X, right? Well, it's not. Its a lot like Windows Terminal
> Server or PC Anywhere.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Thanks. It was bundled with Caldera OpenLinux... its description was
even in the book, but the product was never explained properly. Makes
sense now.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Java (was Re: 696 Native MacOSX Apps So Far -)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:24:18 +1200
Thanks for clearing up the confusion. I too see Java having a future.
Here are a few applications where a java would be well suited:
Cross platform Mediaplayer. For example, in the case of Real Media
which matains several different code bases for their media player,
which, obviously, would cost a fair bit. The more efficient way would be
to re-write the media player in Java (which is achievable as SUN has
included a Java based media player with Solaris, thus, you only need to
maintain one code base, as well as automatically support any new OS w/
JVM if they arrive. For example, say if I wrote a new OS, and it had a
JVM, people would automatically be able to view Real Media content, thus
both consumers of the new OS, the developer, and Real Networks win.
Matthew Gardiner
pip wrote:
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
>> I was just wondering. Say if I were to totally write the application in
>> java, then I decide to instead of having the write once, run everywhere. Is
>> it possible to compile the program natively for that OS.
>
>
> Probably yes. For win32 there are various pre compilers and I think that
> there are a few projects for Linux (such as the Gnu compiler java
> extensions).
>
>
>> The reason why I
>> ask it that java is not api dependent, which would then allow projects to be
>> written in Java, then all that would be needed is a recompile on what ever
>> achitecture you want to distribute for.
>
>
> Yes - not OS API dependent. To compile or not to compile is the age old
> question of code purity and portability. I for one would prefer to rely
> on JIT compilers at run-time rather than removing one of Java's largest
> advantages. You can treat Java as a language and not as a "platform",
> however it is up to you to decide if say C++ would be better suited
> combined with a GUI such as QT and some form of network API
> cross-platform libs. Quite frankly, IMHO Java is still easier assuming
> that it can support what you want to do. In the future I see no reason
> why JIT's could not perform code optimisations that are better than C++
> pre-compiled code - given that a JIT can use run-time information to
> improve performance (don't flame me). Of course until someone gets some
> real benchmarks my talk is just hot air (and GUI is a REAL big problem
> in this dept). As us programmers are a pragmatic bunch, I like to see
> that people use many languages and choose the one best suited to the
> task, and I think that Java has many merits for the normal user-level
> programmer.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 03:20:56 +0200
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9aibop$p9s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Nik Simpson wrote in message ...
> >
> >"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9ago89$kpn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Nik Simpson wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >"J.T. Wenting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:9ad0qd$o6q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > XP = eXPerimental
> >> >> >
> >> >> thought it meant ExPert? Experimental systems are of course usually
> >> >handled
> >> >> by experts, which might be the origin of people thinking XP means
> >> >> experimental...
> >> >>
> >> >> > It integrates the NT kernal.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Nope, the Win2K kernel, which is a complete rewrite.
> >> >>
> >> >> > But it also integrates a part of .NET.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Yah, why else create a technology if you're not going to use it?
> >> >>
> >> >> > At least in the hardware abstraction layer, they are starting with
a
> >> JIT
> >> >> > compiler, instead of a pure emulated VM.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Not JIT, of course. JIT is platform dependent in that it works only
> for
> >> >Java
> >> >> applications, where .NET will be language independent...
> >> >
> >> >And even if such technology were included it would not be in the HAL,
a
> >> >claim that it is in the HAL indicates either the person doesn't know
> what
> >> >they are talking about or is deliberately trolling, or both.
> >>
> >My apologies, obviously somebody at MS is overloading the term Hardware
> >Abstraction Layer. The NT/W2K HAL that provides the direct I/F between
the
> >low level OS routines and the hardware is definitely not what they are
> >talking about.
>
> This web middleware "OS" of a framework and an execution engine utilizes
the
> underlying traditional OS to handle the functioning of the "hardware"
> aspects such as the functioning of the hard disk, the peripherals and
their
> communication "bus," etc.
>
> It's interesting that the software "bus" which used to be called an Object
> Request Broker (ORB), and now seems to be called a "platform," is evolving
> with its related infrastructure as a specialized sector for software.
>
> Why have this software platform do all the functionality related to the
> hardware which has to be tightly integrated with the CPU and its various
> chipsets on the motherboard?
>
> The traditional HAL that you mention, of course, allows the OS to run on
any
> supported chip. But the emergence of the network OS with the web has meant
> that any OS has both client and server tiers to consider.
>
> The divergence of these tiers means that a platform has to supply
> functionality by being hosted on both tiers.
>
> Maybe a new term is needed. Got any suggestions? It has to be an
abstraction
> layer that abstracts out the hardware and a minimal concept of the OS,
since
> the software platform is taken away much of its functionality.
What is wrong with PAL? Platform Abstraction Layer?
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:38:56 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sam Heads quoth:
> SH: The example of Wolf and Coyote reappearance in North America
> is not an example of any form of evolution, natural or artificial.
AFAIK, coyotes have *NEVER* been all but gone in North America. I
have lived and travelled all over the Western and Southwestern US and
have never been to a place that didn't have a native population of
Coyotes.
Wolves are a *very* different story.
------------------------------
From: "Alex Chaihorsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: 06 Apr 2001 01:38:36 GMT
Reply-To: "Alex Chaihorsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The only difference between a socialist and a communist:
>
> The communists know what they eventually intend to do.
>
>
Aaron, bravo, I have not heard this one! It is exactly what the difference
is!
As soon as pink get the power they all turn RED.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
------------------------------
From: "Alex Chaihorsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: 06 Apr 2001 01:40:31 GMT
Reply-To: "Alex Chaihorsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ahk5d$9b5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alex Chaihorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> : Marxism is a religion. It is a religion of cowards who are
> : afraid to go to the world and take risks of their own. It is a religion
of
> : the weak who are afraid to be pushed aside by the strong. It is a
religion
> : of envy, dark, black envy of the talentless and the lazy alike.
> : But mostly the honorless cowards, who say - "I do not dare and will not
let
> : you dare".
>
>
> That is perhaps the best description of Marxism that I have ever seen.
>
>
> Joe
Thanks, Joe, I am humbled. I feel that finally I am paying back the
bastards. Feels GREAT.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
------------------------------
From: cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:46:24 -0500
Not when they're manufactured by Intel.
"Ben L. Titzer" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, cjt & trefoil wrote:
>
> > Is Intel doing anything to up the clock on the Alpha?
>
> :D
>
> I think they are, indirectly, but wouldn't you agree that's more of
> Compaq's problem? :)
>
> >
> > Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Harley
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > Too bad IA32 chips run faster than Alphas now. :)
> > > >
> > > > Really? You should let SPEC know that, because they're under the
> > > > impression that an 833 MHz Alpha peaks at 544 versus 539 for a 1.33
> > > > GHz Athlon and 536 for a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 on CINT2000. And it's 658
> > > > versus 445 or 558 on CFP2000.
> > >
> > > Didn't know it was *that* close!
> > >
> > > That means that next week, or next month, or next quarter, the x86
> > > *will* be faster :-(
> > >
> > > On a slightly different track, are there any numbers yet for the 733 MHz
> > > PowerPC G4+?
> > >
> > > -- Bruce
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Phases
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:52:07 +1200
I wonder why I don't have arthritus yet from all the time spent clicking
on the save button? I know, I don't use Windows (apart from when I
posted this, as I am waiting for my copy of SuSE Linux 7.1 to arrive as
I got pissed off with Redhat 7).
Matthew Gardiner
David Jordan wrote:
> First you learn Windows, then you discover things, then
> you learn GNU/Linux, then discover things, then you back
> to Windows to work quicker, but with a GNU/Linux
> firewall between you and the net.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:12:49 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) writes:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:49:44 -0400, JS PL <jspl@jsplom> wrote:
>>
>>The worst PR blunder of all time!! I think not. It's most likely going to be
>>a non-story to most.
>>
>
> You're not very intelligent, are you?
Well we know that but I'm sure it will have little affect on
Microsoft. When you look at all the security problems with IIS, any
version of windows, IE, outlook, the list goes on and on, nothing
seems to affect what business analysts say about Microsoft. These
people are completely unaware of the significance of Microsofts
atrocious security record with regard to .net, hailstorm, etc. And
who do those with purchasing power in companies look to for advice?
It's all very sad.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:22:44 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9agc8g$n2q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, say if I was a programmer, and I was working from home. I was just
> cruising through the source code of piece of software and I saw a MAJOR
> error, so I think, well, I better email work to notify them of the problem.
> So, I open up me hotmail inbox and email them a patch to correct the error.
> Does that mean that the patch I just sent is the property of Microsoft?
> that sound pretty strange. Its a bit like posting a letter, and getting
> told that the Post Office owns it once you have posted it, regardless of who
> it is intended for.
Its not a bit like it, it is it (to many it's :-) But who cares about a
patch? If you are developing something with other people via any Microsoft
service they basically own anything you send. Why didn't I think of this?
Brilliant! Going back to british humour, a diffeent thread I think, Monty
Python couldn't have come up with a better sketch. Or maybe they did with
the guy asking for money from the stockbroker. :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
