Linux-Advocacy Digest #472, Volume #33 Mon, 9 Apr 01 23:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Mike4#@#)
Re: Darwinian Evolution and open software ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Windows in space...... (Big Daddy)
Re: Inktomi Webmap -- Apache has 60% now. ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: DVD on Linux? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Baseball (Chad Everett)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("Romulan Spy")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Chris Morgan)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Craig Brozefsky)
Re: Q:Windows NT scripting? (Chronos Tachyon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike4#@# <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Date: 9 Apr 2001 18:32:43 -0700
You guys are really amazing. a typical linux responses.
Theories abone theories and steps and explanations of the
process and pointers to documenations and why one needs to
do this and that to make it work on linux.
Yet, you are all missing a very simple fact the original poster
pointed. Which is, one on windows does NOT have to do any of this.
So, for a user, windows is better in this case, becuase one will
stick the CD in and it just works. I have a CD burn software (comes
free), and on the same PC, on widnows, I never had to tell it anything,
I click on the icon, the software comes up, I put the blank CD in,
and click 'write CD' and it just WORKS! amazing, I did not even
have to compile windows NT, but how that is possible?
boot to linux, and the user has to re-compile the kernel, make
symbolic links, remeber is it /dev/sr0 or /dev/scd0 of what the hell
it has to be, edit lilo.conf, do this and that, and hopefully it
will work.
do you guys even see the point here?
probably not. You all have your thick blinders on, running around
feeling so smart becuase you have to type 20 commands and compiler
the kernel to get something to work, which on windows works without
doing anything.
But for the linux crowds, if something works very simply, the users
must be dumb. It must be hard to configure, else it is not cool.
what a pathatic world you guys live in.
Mike
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Darwinian Evolution and open software
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 19:24:38 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ronald Landheer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paolo Ciambotti wrote:
>> "Ronald Landheer" wrote:
>>> [snip] but as everybody's using the word
>>> "evolution" I'll just stick with saying it's a misconception..
>> A fresh perspective is so nice to see here. Even though I disagree.
> Might I ask why? (I snipped all of mine except what I think you disagree
> with).
Your term "maturation" would imply to me an isolated, sterile, asexual
process. Conversely the term "evolution" conjures up the concepts of
genetic intermingling, spontaneous mutation, and environmental selection.
Linux is mutating by breeding with the beasts at the top of the food
chain, like IBM and HP. Passing on dominant characteristics like the GPL
chromosome to some fairly ferocious offspring, and in turn inheriting
properties like journalled filesystems and SMP support. The software
world is a highly dynamic noosphere, and whether or not Linux survives in
a given environment doesn't depend on how mature it is, but rather how
adaptable to sudden change it proves to be. Nowhere near classical
Darwinian, but evolutionary nonetheless.
------------------------------
From: Big Daddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows in space......
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 02:19:05 GMT
Patrick McAllister wrote:
> Yes, it is.
>
> Also what I found interesting was the note that the Russian laptops were
> "running an unspecified operating system."
>
Mac OS X
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:31:53 -0400, Patrick McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >Probably a duplicate post, but if not, makes for a
> funny....kinda.....read.
> > >
> > >http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,42912,00.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This is worth a short quote, don't you think?:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > .....
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inktomi Webmap -- Apache has 60% now.
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 19:31:42 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "The Ghost
In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip]
>>> Unfortunately, there is no information regarding secure webservers.
Last month's report on secure webserver marketshare by Netcraft again gave
the lead to Microsoft, and they noted that this was due to the fact that
there really is a dearth of competition in this market segment.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 02:33:58 GMT
"Craig Brozefsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You never have to spend more than something is worth unless there
> > is a monopoly controlling the supply.
>
> This is not true, even in non-monopoly cases. The price paid above
> "worth", assuming we agree on what "worth" is, fluctuates quite a bit.
By "worth" I mean value-to-you. If something costs more than
its value to me, I don't buy it. If something costs less, then it
is to my advantage to buy it although I would still like a choice
of vendors and prices.
> Perhaps you are equating price under competition with "worth"? That
> would seem to fit the comment you made above. I think it's useful to
> keep price and "worth" as seperate concepts, because it helps us
> understand the dynamics of market pricing, and production better.
Competition generally drives prices down to the lowest point where
a profit can still be made. Perhaps you consider it coincidental
that this level often puts the price below the 'worth' level for a large
number of people.
> The range the price can fluctuate within is the price elasticity of
> the market. Some markets are very elastic, the market for designer
> lip gloss, or high-end audio software for example. Others are not
> (electricty and water).
'The market' is the point where people decide to buy, meaning the
value to them is greater than the price. On a case-by-case basis,
this is always true, but if competition pushes the price down, it
reaches the 'value' level for a much larger set of people.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DVD on Linux?
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:40:08 +1200
In article <9ar1jj$6flmg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nigel Feltham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As this law doesn't exist in the UK, does anyone know where I can get
>> the necessary files?
>>
>>
> Doesn't this law exist in the UK - a local DVD shop was closed down last
> year for selling american DVD's and accused of selling pirated discs.
> This is just as stupid - American film company presses a DVD then UK
> company imports this DVD and it becomes classed as a Pirated disc in the
> UK even though in many cases it was pressed in the same factory as the
> UK release.
New Zealand has recently allowed parallel importing. And you can buy and
rent Zone 1 DVDs in New Zealand. Sometimes months before the movies even
appear in the local cinema! The current Labour Government has a stated
intention to largely repeal the parallel importation laws because they
think it will enhance creativity (can't have consumers paying standard
world prices for intellectual property). Thankfully the issue has died
down at the moment. But there are powerful interests trying to get the
laws repealed.
Meanwhile the Australian government commissioned a wide ranging
intellectual property and competition report which was released late last
year. It recommends that Australia should allow parallel importing.
Here's the report:
http://www.ipcr.gov.au/ipcr/
By the way, Microsoft is strongly against parallel importing (of software)
being allowed in Australia. It is common for consumers out of the main US
market to be segmented and made to pay significantly higher prices than
consumers in the United States.
Here is the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) opinion
on parallel importation:
http://www.ipcr.gov.au/ipcr/finalreport1dec/introcopy.htm#_Toc498833503
"Piracy has been the main scare tactic used to deter governments from
opening markets to parallel imports, particularly the markets for recorded
music and computer software. At best, restrictions on parallel imports are
a blunt means to clamp down on piracy, and one which comes with the high
costs associated with restrictions on competition. Piracy should be
tackled directly through specific sanctions and internationally through
agreements such as TRIPS, which are now being implemented in Asia and
elsewhere. Furthermore, technological developments are increasingly
available to aid in the prevention of privacy. If pirate product is
available, it will enter Australia regardless of restrictions on parallel
imports, but only to the extent that we have the sort of informal retail
sector and culture of acceptance which will facilitate its marketing and
distribution. The Commission submits that this is not a widespread feature
of Australian society and it has seen no evidence that imported piracy has
significantly increased since the market for recorded music was opened up
to parallel imports."
Some lobby groups (e.g. the US tried to bully NZ at the time the laws were
changed) have tried to imply that allowing parallel imports is a breach of
international obligations (because fairer prices paid by countries such as
New Zealand could hurt international profits of some US companies and
Hollywood). It is definately not a breach of international obligations.
The TRIPS Treaty expressly allows competition scrunity:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3d_e.htm#8
Especially point 2:
"2. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Members from specifying in
their legislation licensing practices or conditions that may in particular
cases constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights having an
adverse effect on competition in the relevant market..."
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Apr 2001 21:31:42 -0500
On 10 Apr 2001 00:10:03 GMT, Chris Belway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> .........
>
>And were are the Linux Billionaries? In never never land.
>
I am a Linux Billionaire.
------------------------------
From: "Romulan Spy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.tv.star-trek.voyager,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.startrek
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:43:32 -0700
"Chris Z. Wintrowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Personally, the only reason I watch Voyager is to get an eye-full of
> Jeri Ryan wearing that skin-tight catsuit, and to laugh at that
> snivelling idiot Berman because the only reason Jeri Ryan is shagging
> him is to make sure she gets a part on the forthcoming fifth installment
> of the Berman/Braga celebration of shit.
>
> - Chris Z. Wintrowski -
>
SHE'S WHAT? Is this true -?
> * "I don't think we can afford to keep doing business as usual" *
> - Chakotay
------------------------------
From: Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 09 Apr 2001 22:58:53 -0400
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed; I'm amazed at the number of UNIX vacancies (usually advertised by
> agencies, I admit) that ask for resumes in M$ Word format. Duh, don't
> those idiots get it?! I usually just fax 'em a copy of the printed version
> which I compose in vi/groff, and output in PostScript.
I find Word loses out to a web document in the sense that I never get
people encouraging me to "get with the program" if I give them a URL,
since it's newer than Word to do that. For my current role I presented
my own resume when I turned up at the interview. It, amazingly enough,
didn't have all the errors that the recruitment company had managed to
insert into it when Wordifying it. It was nicely typeset in Latex and
laser-printed, and contained a URL to my home webserver which had the
same exact text available in Postscript, plain text and html. Part of
my job interview turned into a debate about how I got it to print out
so nice... :)
At work I am having some success defeating the Wordies because I send
them a link to a web document when presenting designs or proposals
which pulls the latest version out of CVS and itself contains another
URL which points to the revision history. Since document control is a
shambles there I don't have any problem shaming them with their
useless uncontrolled bloated unversioned vanity wannabe typesetter
efforts.
I think some of my colleagues actually do not know how to write plain
ascii - literally. For example one time I wrote an email which
contained some listed items
o like this
o like that
o and like the other
and somone wrote to me asking me how I did the bullet points. Duh!
Cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Morgan <cm at mihalis.net> http://www.mihalis.net
Temp sig. - Enquire within
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:00:00 -0700
Nope. I'm Baptist but I did go to a religious college. Didn't take well,
but I went
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"RTO Trainer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ab9A6.577710$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:0oNz6.1141$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > As I understand it the Bible was written from Greek or Aramaic documents
> > translated into Latin.
> >
>
>
> <g> You Catholic Roger? The Pope'll love you. :)
>
> (The preceeding is not an anti-catholic flame, its humor. I am Catholic.)
>
> This is true of the Vulgate. That's the "official" Roman Catholic
> translation done by St. Jerome.
>
> Many other translations have been done from the surviving Greek texts
> (Aramaic texts are generally considered (don't ask me why)
> non-authoritative) directly without regard to Jerome.
>
> Of course, this is WRT the New Testament. The Old Testament was
originally
> in Hebrew (go figure), BUT the oldest known copy is actually in Greek (the
> Septuagint) and is usually used as a source document rather than more
recent
> Hebrew texts.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
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
From: Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 Apr 2001 22:03:53 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is not true, even in non-monopoly cases. The price paid above
> > "worth", assuming we agree on what "worth" is, fluctuates quite a bit.
>
> By "worth" I mean value-to-you. If something costs more than
> its value to me, I don't buy it. If something costs less, then it
> is to my advantage to buy it although I would still like a choice
> of vendors and prices.
Yah, that is what I call worth too, I sometimes use the term use-value
instead.
> Competition generally drives prices down to the lowest point where a
> profit can still be made. Perhaps you consider it coincidental that
> this level often puts the price below the 'worth' level for a large
> number of people.
Not so much coincidental, implying no relation between the two. It
was not my intent to say there was no relation. My intent was to
point out that the two are not the same, they differ under actual
market conditions, lack of competition being a good example. There
are other factors tho, enough to make it worthwhile to consider them
seperately, not just to call them the same thing in the presence of
competition. I also think that it's useful to seperate the two when
talking about production, especially with intellectual property.
My reasoning is that we often see in estimates of "losses to piracy"
that the price is used to signify the worth of the product, as if the
price the vendor set is emphatically the use-value of the software
itself. At other times we see people talk about productivity, wether
at the personal, company or national level using the price of the
intellectual goods as their "worth". Lastly, does the use-value of a
copied intellectual good differ from that of the original purchased at
a particular price? It's certainly not worth nothing.
> > The range the price can fluctuate within is the price elasticity
> > of the market. Some markets are very elastic, the market for
> > designer lip gloss, or high-end audio software for example.
> > Others are not (electricty and water).
>
> 'The market' is the point where people decide to buy, meaning the
> value to them is greater than the price. On a case-by-case basis,
> this is always true, but if competition pushes the price down, it
> reaches the 'value' level for a much larger set of people.
Hmm, I tend to think of the market as the set of all people who find
use-value in the product, or set of products, not just the people who
are purchasing them. When you say it's the point where people decide
to buy, do you "the market" is a price point, or that it contains only
those who purchase the product? My reason for considering it that way
is that it let's me include both those who decided not to buy, as well
as thoe that did, which is useful when talking about pricing
strategies.
PS: I'm not trying to hound you or flame you to conform to some
orthodoxy of economic terminology.
--
Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In the rich man's house there is nowhere to spit but in his face
-- Diogenes
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Q:Windows NT scripting?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:05:50 GMT
On Mon 09 Apr 2001 07:51, Craig Kelley wrote:
[Snip]
>
> Video cards are the most complicated piece of equipment in your
> machine, much more so than any single other piece -- and this just
> seems to be getting worse with time.
Yep. This is the current problem. It kind of reminds me of the
proliferation of dirt cheap floppies, in a way -- uneducated consumers
looking for the biggest "dick size" indicator at the cheapest prices,
unaware that there is a difference in quality. It's all been slowly going
downhill since the start of 2D acceleration and the end of framebuffers.
>
> I don't believe the cards need to run at ring 0, but it's been a while
> since I studied up on ia32 architecture (can AGP do a DMA transfer
> using a lesser privilege? can AGP access primary memory with a lesser
> privilege?)
>
I'm no hardware hacker, but I do believe that all the AGP transfer stuff is
independent of the CPU's privilege level. Just think of classic XFree -- a
purely user-space, ring 3 application driving the video hardware with the
kernel acting as a go-between. The video hardware can access whatever
memory it is asked to, and it's up to the kernel to decide if the
application is trustworthy enough to give the hardware arbitrary
instructions that could include memory accesses.
Of course, all this go-betweening helps to make a user-space video driver
less efficient, so it makes sense to somehow reduce the number of ring
transitions: whether by batching up requests for the kernel to handle
one-by-one, or by using a more terse protocol where one command expands
into multiple hardware calls. With the massive amounts of data that need
to be shuffled about in near-realtime, the user-space driver model begins
to chafe, thus DRI enters the picture.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
