Linux-Advocacy Digest #3, Volume #34 Fri, 27 Apr 01 20:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows 2K is crappy: a couple of examples (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Windows 2K is crappy: a couple of examples (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Windows 2000 Rocks! (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Wayne Mann)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Zippy)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (The Ghost In The
Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2K is crappy: a couple of examples
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:59:51 +0100
>
> > One of my friends got one of them recently. Unfortunately, 10x CDRWs are
> > quite hard to come by round here (and 16X CDs still aren't as common as
> > 12X ones, even their the same price (!)).
>
True - most CDRW discs will only burn at 4x speed - the faster ones are
labelled as 4x to 10x speed compatible which seems to indicate a
compatibility problem with slower burners. I will have to try this - I am
installing my old 2x2x6 burner in my father's P90 tomorrow to replace one
of the early philips huge external SCSI drives ( model 521/02 with only
256k buffer and no test-burn option but still reliable after 7 years use).
> I use the 8x media and haven't had a problem burning at 16x (and I've
> burned
> probably 30 cd's already in the few weeks i've owned it). It has some
> kind of new technology called BURN (Buffer UnderRuN protection) and
> doesn't seem to burn any coasters, and i've verified the CD's as being
> completely error free.
>
Wow - finally an area where I agree with eric: BURN-Proof CDRW drives ROCK!
There seems to be 2 versions of this technology though - BURNPROOF designed
by sanyo and JustLink designed by Ricoh. This ricoh version is alledgedly
the best one as it leaves a smaller gap when turning laser back on although
both are probably too accurate to notice the difference anyway except for
very careful Audio-CD listening. I have copied an audio CD from my DVD
drive to my CDRW drive at full speed with no noticeable audio problems even
though my CDRW burns at 12x speed and my DVD can only extract audio at 9x
speed which should be a good test for the technology ( using an old 2x
drive as source would have been a better test though).
I think the 8x rating on CD-R discs is just the fastest drives available
when they were tested as these are the type I am burning at 12x speed with
no problems ( probably more reliable than my 2x burner due to this
buffer-underrun proofing although I only had this problem under windows
anyway).
I have even tried burning a data CD at 12x speed while recompiling the
Linux kernel - it took as long as a 2x burner but still had no errors.
The lack of cheap 10x CDRW discs is not a problem to me - with the current
price of CDR's why buy reuseable discs.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 19:50:26 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > MS_DOS was low cost and the others were artificially high.
> > >
> > > Presumably their makers throught they were worth it.
> >
> > No, the costs of other OS's were artificially high.
>
> Out of morbid curiousity: What the heck does "artificially high"
> mean here?
>
It means CP/M was sold ata higher price on the PC so that people would
by M$-DOS instead.
> > They M$ started up
> > the per preocessor licesnses. Vendos would have had to pay for -2- OS
> > licenses per machine if they bundled anything but M$ OS's
>
> No, but they would have had to pay more had they
> split their lineups. The fewer copies of Windows they
> put out they more they had to pay per copy.
>
> They could still *do* it.
>
... and they would have to pay for the MS-DOS license AND the other OS
license.
> But given that their customers wanted Windows,
> it would have made no sense to pay more.
>
This was started before Windows and continued throught he early releases
of Windows. They were contrived to make it more expensive to ship
anything except M$ OS's
> [snip]
> > > As I said, IBM offered three choices and MS-DOS was
> > > the one consumers favored early on. But that didn't
> > > matter much- had (say) CP/M won out, Microsoft
> > > could still have persued their Windows strategy
> > > by running Windows on CP/M.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah. Right.
>
> Sure. Microsoft have engineers that, if nothing
> else, are amazingly good at hacking stuff like that
> together.
>
Yes, they are good at _hacking together_ software. They have been doing
it for decades. And since MS-DOS (QDOS) was a clone of CP/M , IM sure M$
engineers could have built Windows on top of another OS... but that
would hurt M$'s OS position.
> They made OLE run on MacOS. That should tell
> you what they were capable of.
>
I already know what they are capable of.
> Putting Windows on CP/M instead of MS-DOS
> would have been no problem.
>
Excecept that it would allow the erosion of M$'s OS base, which they
have protected at ALL costs.
> > > Microsoft's volume discounts were no doubt helpful
> > > in a general way later on, but hardly a primary factor.
> >
> > Volume licenses... oh, you mean the ones that state dyou had to pay for
> > an M$ OS wether you shipped one or not.. those licenses?
>
> MS would sell you Windows even if you didn't put out
> so many copies as they wanted. But they charged more for
> that.
>
DUH. which meant the vendors had to pass that cost along... and that
meant raising prices higher than the competition's.
> > > OEMs, after all, had to be shipped volume before volume
> > > discounts made any sense for them.
> >
> > I think you should re-examine your history.
>
> I don't think I should. I think you are getting cause and effect
> mixed up, and exageratting a few details to boot.
Read.
Barbarians Led by Bill Gates.
The Microsoft File, the Secret Case Against Bill Gates.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:50:46 GMT
comp.os.linux.advocacy removed from followups.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 25 Apr 2001 02:58:26 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>> nunnayabidniz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >homosexuality is not genetic, it is a choice.
>>
>> Why did you choose to be heterosexual?
>
>because successful DNA are those that reproduce.
>
>Part of being successful is being sexually attracted to members
>of the APPROPRIATE sex.
>
>There are only two explanations for homosexuality
>a) it's a choice
>b) genetic defect in the brain.
I suspect there's a third option, since we're apparently a bunch
of horny individuals (even during Victorian times), and the brain
has the capability of rewiring itself -- unlike computers -- to
modify its decision graph given certain stimuli. In short, there
are choices -- and there are choices; it's not even clear to me
how one can properly stipulate precisely what a choice is.
And one cannot deny that sex can be *very* stimulating, if done right.
It also can be addictive, disgustingly messy, problematic if not
done with societal approval (e.g., lovers, mistresses, orgies, and
of course same-sex liaisons), and pregnancy-causing if not done
with birth control -- which of course can be intentional in some cases.
I'm also going to quibble as to why it's a "defect". Who makes the
judgement? Homosexuality is a non-lethal genome -- unless of course
one gets beaten by a baseball bat and left for dead near a roadway,
shot, or otherwise has one's life drastically altered or taken away.
But those are not genetic, those are sociological -- if not pathological.
It's possible other genetic factors are at work, however -- the
competitive spirit may also be partly genetic and express itself
by beating one's competition -- in this case, literally. (Why gays
might be competition in this context, I'm not quite sure. Certainly
it's not because they're after the same mates! And yet, there's a
violent hate that expresses itself in these sorts of cases; the only
possibility I can see is the spreading of various VD's prior to the
advent of modern medical practice; it is possible the primitive society
would ostracize those who are different, to reduce infection -- and even
then, it doesn't feel like a workable explanation.)
You also did not answer his question. DNA don't choose; they just are.
If you're suggesting that you became heterosexual consciously because
you wanted to have sons or daughters, that's possible, but IMO unlikely;
after all, most of us notice girls in the teens or so and aren't
pursuing them because we consciously want to settle down, have families,
pay college tuition, have that second car, etc. etc.! It's far more
deep-seated than that. (In fact, my understanding is that one's sexual
alignment -- if that's the correct term -- is more or less fixated by
the time one reaches the age of 6. I for one do not recall exactly why.
It's also not clear why it doesn't evidence until puberty, athough
one might liken it to a wiring module that gets activated by a (in
this case, chemical) switch. But before that, girls are just boys
in different dress. :-) )
I will also quibble as to what the definition of "successful" is.
My understanding is that a number of male homosexuals do very well
in the fashion industry, making millions. Is this success?
I don't know, really.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 11d:22h:07m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When you're not aggravated enough.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2K is crappy: a couple of examples
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:04:56 +0100
> I'm not sure what you mean precisely. If you mean, can you access the
> files
> in the image without burning, there are a number of programs to do so. I
> don't specifically know of one that mounts it as a file system though
> (there could be, but i've never had the need).
>
I've not thought of this before but it should be possible to mount a CD
image as a filesystem on windows - it just needs a suitable VXD file to be
installed. It's still easier under linux though :-
mount -o loop cdimagefile mountpoint.
This works for images of any filesystem supported by Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.men
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:58:46 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Consider the fact that upon graduation, an undergraduate Physics major
> is expected to understand everything that Einstein knew about physics,
> and more.
Bollocks. How many undergraduate physics students study GR? They don't
study the mathematics for GR for a start.
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:59:21 GMT
On Fri 27 Apr 2001 03:53, Ayende Rahien wrote:
[Snip]
>>
>> If, by some stroke of luck, you were able to get Windows to boot off of a
>> slave drive, it would be very confused about which drive to call C: and
>> why C:\WINDOWS (or C:\WINNT) doesn't exist anymore.
>
> Really?
> I *never* had problems with this.
> I used to dual boot between 2000Beta3 & NT, each on different HD, neither
> had a trouble booting when it was slave (all I needed to do was to change
> boot option on the BIOS), the primary master was always c:, until I got
> tired of that and moved it.
> Later I removed the NT HD, and for a while I used 2000B3 from slave (boot
> sequence, C,A,CDROM), and it didn't have a single problem with it.
> Win9x goes by the boot order in the BIOS, BTW. (If the BIOS is set to
> (D,blah,blah) the second bootable HD is C:, the rest follow its
> leadership.
>
Hmph. My information must be out of date -- I distinctly recall coming
across problems with Win9x not liking anything but the first partition on
the master drive of the first bus. Maybe MS fixed that in Win98 when I
wasn't looking. Presumably, it works by calling whichever partition it
booted from C: and relettering the rest?
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:00:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nomen Nescio
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:00:05 +0200 (CEST)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nomen Nescio
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:20:06 +0200 (CEST)
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) eeped:
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nomen Nescio
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> clacked:
>> >> >> <snype>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > because it would cost them more than they paid for thier
>> >> >> > machine in the first place
>> >> >> > ya retard
>> >> >> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than
>> >> >> > ruin, more even than death
>> >> >> > - bertrand russell
>> >> >> Upgrading a kernel. Well, I have SUSE Linux, I goto the suse
>> >> >> ftp site, download the latest rpm kernel, drop into super user
>> >> >> mode, then rpm -Uvh kernel.rpm and voila, reboot, and I have a
>> >> >> new kernel. Is it that hard, no, so stop spreading FUD on
>> >> >> issues you have no experience.
>> >> >
>> >> >why look, it's another lying sack of shit unix headcase! he snips the
>> >> >context and then accuses me of ignorance! way to go fuckhead. if you
>> >> >ever wonder why linux has gone nowhere with endusers reread yourself.
>> >>
>> >> We should just count ourselves lucky we don't have you as an advocate...
>> >
>> >i don't do advocacy dimwit
>> >
>> >> you're getting far too wound up for usenet, it's not that
>> >> important, take a few valium and relax. It'll all seem
>> >> better in the morning.
>> >
>> >you write like a homosexual
>>
>> And how would you know?
>
>your excessive interest in my bum.
Please indicate exactly where I have expressed any interest at all
in your posterior. Message-ID's preferred.
>plus linux is well known to be extremely gay.
As opposed to Win2k, I suppose. Well, you're entitled to your opinion,
but I for one find it not all that useful (how is a software product
"gay" or "straight"?) Perhaps if you can clarify this puzzlement?
After all, both have GUIs, both have scrollbars, both have word
processors, both can do networking, both have a dedicated user base
(Windows has a much larger total user base, of course), and both can
be used to promulgate one's business.
What, precisely, does Windows have that Linux does not, apart from
market acceptance (which can be a killer -- look at the Amiga, for
example)?
Personally, I find Linux more useful at home. I find Win2k more
useful at work, but that's mostly because everyone else uses it there.
>
>> For the record: my understanding is that homosexuals are more intelligent
>> and more sensitive than average.
>
>what a givaway!
You're saying that my sensitivity and intelligence imply that I'm gay?
If so, your logic needs a lot of work. It would be similar to my
concluding that one is a drunkard simply by observing that s/he has
a red nose (severe allergy sufferers might also have a red nose).
Or that one has a car simply because one has a keyring.
You're going to have to do better than that.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 11d:22h:15m actually running Linux.
I don't hate Microsoft. Just their products.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Rocks!
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:15:50 +0100
> >I'm sure this must be illegal under some fair trading rules.< Isn't
> >there
> a piece of paper shipped with these windows programs ? What if you open
Yes - there is sometimes a paper licence agreement included but I have
still seen software where this piece of paper is inside the package and it
claims you agree to it by opening the package.
> this package and that software doesn't fit your needs ? If I buy a buggy
> car or a book without letters, I would return it to the seller
> immediately. The last software I bought was Applixware; at least in
> Germany Applixware is shipped with a little booklet containing the license
> condition. This seems fair enough, but Applixware is not a windows
> program.... .
>
Anyone ever had any success in getting a refund for buggy software - most
suppliers I know of will only replace software with another copy of same
product. Many suppliers I know also state refunds will only be given on
unsuitable software if it is returned unopened - how do I know it's
unsuitable without opening it. This is like buying a car and being told you
can only get a refund for a faulty engine if you don't put the key in the
ignition.
------------------------------
From: Wayne Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
soc.men,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:04:51 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:22:58 -0400, "Scott D. Erb"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Lynette Warren wrote:
>
>>what a scam American feminism truly is
>
>How do you define feminism?
It depends on how you define "is."
\\/ayne //\ann
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
-- 10th Amendment to Constitution
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zippy)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:05:30 GMT
platform is an overused word. there's no such thing as a "pc platform",
unless you're purely talking hardware, which i wasn't. x86 linux doesn't
even use the BIOS (which is what defines the PC hardware platform) because
a C-based OS has no use for a BASIC input/output system.
simply put, a machine with NT installed on it is an "NT box", a machine
with DOS/9x installed is a PC or "DOS box", a machine with Linux installed
is a "Linux box" and a Mac, well, it's just a Mac (unless it's running
Linux, in which case it becomes another "linux box").
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:06:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tomaz Cedilnik
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:37:33 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> You forgot 3.11 and WFW. :-)
>
>Isn't it the same?
Not sure; I don't remember, now. I jumped straight from 3.1 to W95.
>
>> Not to mention the Mountain-Sized Dregs of an Operating System.
>
>???
Mountain-
Sized
Dregs (of an)
Operating
System
= MS-DOS. :-)
(It was a little obscure, admittedly.)
>
>> (And then there's Orifice 97, Orifice2000, Weird 2.0, Weird 6.0,
>> Weird97, and Weird2000...)
>
>Orifice xx contains Weird xx. Not sure about older Weirds... Dont forget
>about Ex-scale 95, 97, 2000, ...
And Microsoft LookOUT! and Microsoft BLOB and Microsoft FlowerPoint
and Microsoft Quaint and Internet Exploder and Microsoft Visually Basic
and Microsoft Wants Your Money and ...
I could go on all day, admittedly... :-/
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 11d:23h:43m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. Just when you thought you were safe.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
