Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #33 Sun, 8 Apr 01 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (T. Max Devlin)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (T. Max Devlin)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (T. Max Devlin)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Galeon, Galeon, rah, rah, rah (was: Too expensive, too invasive) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Article: Microsoft excludes world+dog from Passport climb-down (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Phases (Michael Vester)
Re: XP = eXPerimental (Chad Everett)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Chad Everett)
International Space Station: Russian software seems more reliable than Windows NT
(Dave Martel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:12:01 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:39:05
-0600;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:44:45
>> >aaron wrote:
>> >> Anonymous wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > Maybe Microsoft will go the full monty and deliver a stable OS for once?
>> >> >
>> >> > why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while
>> >> > retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business?
>> >>
>> >> It's been so for well over a DECADE, jackie.
>> >
>> >so you're saying that in 1991 there was a unix system as easy to use as
>> >windows is today?
>>
>> To someone who knows how to use it, Unix is easy to use. To someone who
>> does not know how to use it, Windows is hard to use.
>
>which one is easier to learn to use?
Unix, without a doubt. I've taught ignorant people both, and there is
no comparison. Unix is more powerful than many people feel comfortable
with, of course, as they're insecure and unimaginative, as they've been
taught to be. But Unix is undisputably easier.
And that's not counting the command line. Anything with a command line
is easier to learn, of course, because it is simpler (harder to
memorize, perhaps, but easier to understand). But when dealing with a
GUI, its best to have a rock-solid, stable and consistent system. So
Unix wins, hands down.
It's a lot less common, of course, since no Unix developer ever
attempted to gain an illegal monopoly in OSes, let alone succeeded on
the open-standard PC platform, but that's not what you asked.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:14:08 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:48:36
-0600;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Mike in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:16:12 -0700;
>> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while
>> >>> retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business?
>> >>
>> >>Windows isn't easy to use, it's pretty damned painful and stressful. To
>> >>have excel GPF because you typed numbers into a cell, and lose your most
>> >>recent work, is frustrating and inexplicable. Especially when you can load
>> >>it up a second time and do exactly the same thing, but this time it wont
>> >>crash.
>> >>
>> >>Every time I use linux, it does what I would expect it to do. THAT'S ease
>> >>of use.
>> >
>> >WHERE ARE THE LINUX BILLIONAIRES?????
>>
>> They're all over the place.
>>
>> Consider the "market price" of a PC OS. Let's say, fifty bucks. Now,
>> that's just an EULA. A developer's license (yea, you see where I'm
>> going with this) with source code and unlimited right to produce
>> derivative property, that would probably cost no less than a few
>> thousand bucks. But that's per computer; the right to distribute the OS
>> or put it on any number (that's ANY NUMBER, one to one million, if you
>> have, sell, or touch that many PCs) of computers.
>>
>> There are several million Linux billionaires, the way I see it.
>
>does my freeware copy of pacman make me a pacman billionaire?
No. Freeware gives you no rights to the intellectual property; you
merely have a copy of pacman, worth whatever you can get someone else to
pay you for it. Kind of like a Windows license, accept you didn't give
up your rights to sell it in order to get it.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:14:33 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:09:06
-0600;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:06:51
>> -0600;
>> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Maybe Microsoft will go the full monty and deliver a stable OS for once?
>> >
>> >why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while
>> >retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business?
>>
>> Your result does not logically follow from your premise, I'm afraid.
>> What does ease of use have to do with illegal monopolization?
>
>for one thing it's extremely popular and thus affords you the opportunity
What does ease of use have to do with illegal monopolization?
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:21:14 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 06 Apr 2001
22:55:42 +1200;
>Have you ever heard the term, "the best technology doesn't always win on the
>day".
Yes, and I consider it a myth; more, an obvious fabrication, by
definition.
>UNIX has been around for 35 years, and has never been intended to be run on
>end lusers systems such as yours, that is why they have stuck with high end
>servers and workstations, the area where the end user has some grey matter in
>their head.
No, actually, it was that for the first decade of PC development, Unix
developers did not want to water-down their market by supporting
commodity hardware PCs. The second decade, they were unable, due to
Microsoft's illegal activity in both decades.
>Also, if you were to look at Linux as the Desktop version of UNIX,
>considering it has only been around for 9 years, it has made tremendous inroads
>into the OS market, considering that not only is it competing against UNIX is
>some areas, but the illegally maintained monopoly of Microsoft in the OS market.
It competes against some Unixes, as do other Unixes. It will be
improved to an extent inversely proportional to the number of
proprietary Unix developers that finally give up and make it better.
IBM is almost done, once HP and Sun are forced to follow, the days of
proprietary OSes will be gone. Bear in mind, nothing competes against
that which is anti-competitive.
>I also refute those statistics. Many of them never include the number of
>downloaded copies of Linux, or the "borrowed" copy, or the number of people
>outside the US adopting Linux as their main OS. It will be rather interesting if
>Linux becomes the defacto standard on chinese computers, and even if Linux has a
>20% share in the Chinese OS market, that will equal 240 Million copies, thus
>definitely putting it a serious position. Also there is a matter with Red Flag
>Linux, which, if the Chinese government agrees, could become the standard OS used
>on government computers, thus, end users in china will follow suite, and use
>linux as well.
Well said. So much for bogus "market share" breakdowns. Market share
is meaningless, unless you're ignorant of the law.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:22:45 GMT
Said WGAF in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:30:55 GMT;
[...]
>Conversely, for 35 years Unix couldn't manage to come up with a usable
>version for the end users.[...]
As if "Unix" were a volitional entity, and "end users" were a concrete
group. Guffaw.
>Catering for small area is fine, but then it
>should not be compared to technology aimed at the mass user market. The
>requirements and the subsequent pricing are different among other things.
No, they aren't. 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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:24:49 GMT
Said Toby A Inkster Esq in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 06 Apr 2001
16:08:28 +0100;
>In our last episode, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
>:It will be rather interesting if
>:Linux becomes the defacto standard on chinese computers, and even if Linux has a
>:20% share in the Chinese OS market, that will equal 240 Million copies, thus
>:definitely putting it a serious position.
>
>That assumes every citizen of China has their own PC. I think that is
>quite an assumption.
Considering its China we're talking about, I would expect the whole
country to have one "240 million user" license. So that would be the
equivalent of Microsoft's accounting, I think.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:27:16 GMT
Said WGAF in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:33:30 GMT;
[...]
>Once again you're wrong... I'm not even going to argue how well Unix or
>Linux can handle multiple services on the same server. Not to mention the
>fact that it greatly depends on the underlying hardware. One of the
>Microsft's product, Small Business Server, incorporates Exchange, SQL,
>Proxy, web, file and print services, etc, into one server. Can you see why
>your posting was wrong, or should I give you some hints?
Just in case anybody actually CARES, the term for "the computer a server
runs on" is "host". Linux can handle multiple servers on the same
_host_. Microsoft crapware puts multiple servers into the same _host_.
Get it?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Galeon, Galeon, rah, rah, rah (was: Too expensive, too invasive)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:35:13 GMT
Said Matthias Warkus in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 6 Apr 2001
[...]
>- tabbed browsing (best thing since sliced bread)
>- zooming
>- an "Up" arrow in addition to the back/forward arrows
>- an excellent bookmark manager
>- smart bookmarks (with built-in string query, great for search
> engines
>- full-screen mode
>- display of animated GIFs is configurable
>- cookie manager
>- session management with crash recovery
>- automatic bookmarking of often-visited pages
>- "My Portal" start page built right into the browser
>- ...
That sounds like some killer stuff.
See; THIS is what software development is supposed to produce! And I'll
bet it actually WORKS reliably, too!
--
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: alt.privacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Microsoft excludes world+dog from Passport climb-down
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:38:00 GMT
Said Dave Martel in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:45:13
-0600;
>Looks like we all rejoiced a bit too soon:
>
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18165.html>
>Microsoft excludes world+dog from Passport climb-down
>By: Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
>Posted: 07/04/2001 at 00:48 GMT
>
>"Although Microsoft very publicly ate humble pie this week, after its
>Passport authentication hub's Terms of Use appeared to give it carte
>blanche over users' intellectual property, it seems that it was only
>eating American Pie."
>
>"To be precise, Microsoft's revision of its Passport Terms of Use
>applies only to American users." <snip>
Okay, I think we've finally gone from the realm of "illegal" to the
realm of "immoral". This is so pathetic that the word pathetic is
pathetic in describing how pathetic and loathsome it is.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:43:26 GMT
Said WGAF in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 07 Apr 2001 13:24:45 GMT;
>
>"667 Neighbor of the Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> 41% is not rules. Anyway, since Linux is is Unix, let us combine the
>> Unix and Linux scores. Now it reads:
>
>Except for the fact that Unix is not Linux and one shell not combine them
>into one. Unless one knows nothing about either of the OSes....
What the hell are you talking about? *UNIX* is not one. If shell did
combine it, shell can combine Linux, as it is little more than a
freeware Unix. Would you consider FreeBSD Unix? Linux is a hell of a
lot more popular, thanks to the GPL. To exclude it from Unix, in a
comparison against Windows, is ludicrous. Granted, Windows is a single
manufacturer, but that's because it is a monopoly, not a niche. Linux
is certainly not a niche, as much gastritis as that might produce in
your Windows-loving ass.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Phases
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:51:17 -0700
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> David Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
> My work goes a lot more quickly under Linux because it's more reliable
> than 'Doze, and has free first-class tools for everything I do (I'm a
> software developer, and do a little writing as well).
>
> Joe
The reliability is a given. You can automate much more. Scripting can save
much time. Just helped a colleague change a large IIS web site. The owner
of the site had just changed their company name. My colleague was
struggling with 1000's of files using Interdev. In 10 minutes, I wrote a
Perl script that made all the changes. Regular expressions and Perl's
powerful string handling made this an almost trivial task. Under Interdev,
my colleague would be clicking away for days.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 Apr 2001 00:42:57 -0500
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:32:01 -0700, Ermine Todd III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux is for people who don't have any real work to do and can spend endless
>hours recompiling the kernel and are too cheap to pay for the real thing.
>
I'm not too cheap. I bought Windows 2000 Pro and I also bought SuSE 7.1
on sale for $49.99. My linux 2.4.3pre6 kernel re-compiles in under 5 minutes.
Too bad you CAN'T recompile your NT/2K "kernel". I much prefer my linux
system to the W2K Pro.
I was at Borders tonight and checked out Windows 2000 Magazine (current
issue). They've got an article in there about...ready....telnet! Wow!
Read the thing. It reads like it was written for 5 year olds and morons.
But I suppose that makes sense, considering the name of the publication.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 Apr 2001 00:56:21 -0500
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:24:30 +0000, Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Goldhammer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:44:25 +0000,
>> Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, I'm most certainly not a die-hard Darwin fan (although I do
>> >recognize the old chap for the genius he was)
>>
>> Darwin was a genius? Everyone says this. Why? He was,
>> in fact, an extremely poor, sloppy thinker - completely
>> unscientific and highly prone to fantasy. To me, it is
>> a mystery why people heap endless posthumous glorification
>> on such an inept mind. Even a light, cursory reading of
>> Darwin's 'Descent of Man' should be sufficient to convince
>> any reasonably intelligent reader that Darwin was a scientific
>> fraud, a farce, a "scientific genius" in the same sense that
>> Marx, Freud, and Ayn Rand were "scientific geniuses."
>>
>... and Einstein was bad at maths.
>
>I consider Charles Darwin a genius because he came up with a
>revolutionary idea that has stood the test of time.. Of course he didn't
Not really true. Darwin's ideas are so riddled with problems in
trying to explain the development of life on earth and what we know
about it now, that scientists like Stephen Jay Gould have had to come
up with new theories like Punctuated Equilibrium in order to
try and explain what the evidence is actually showing us.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: International Space Station: Russian software seems more reliable than
Windows NT
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 11:57:38 -0600
<http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,42912,00.html>
Houston, Windows Has Problems
by Leander Kahney
2:00 a.m. Apr. 7, 2001 PDT
"...The space station, which has been operational for less than five
months, experiences almost daily computer glitches, according to the
commander's log recently published on the Web."
"Most of the problems appear to be related to Microsoft's Windows NT,
while Russian-made software seems to be more reliable."
"The day really gets off to a bad start," writes Commander Bill
Shepherd in an entry dated February 22. "The server connection to
the (Net) is down hard. We worked on it last night until 0100 and
could not bring it up..."
"...At about 2200, we were reconfiguring some mail files which,
with a lot of help from Windows NT, got put in the wrong place
during the backup procedure."
<snip>
"The log seems to indicate that the crew is using Microsoft Outlook as
their e-mail client."
The article comments that "The network appears to be a mix between Sun
AIX (Unix) and Windows NT servers and Russian laptops running an
unspecified operating system" and that the systems are networked using
ethernet and a low-speed network. It'd be interesting to know what OS
the Russians are using. My guess is either linux or a pirated copy of
Windows. <BG>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
