Linux-Advocacy Digest #187, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Bought out by MS geeks... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Aaron (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:00 GMT
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
17:18:52 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >No, psycho. What you have a need for is some strong medication.
>> >*G*U*F*F*A*W*!!!
>>
>> Wow. What happened, did your meds where off unexpectedly or something?
>
>No, nutjob. I just find your grasp of antitrust law and rational debate
>absolutely guff-AWFUL!
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
>"Where off" indeed... Shall we add grammar to that list? That would
>certainly explain your chronic difficulties with the language of the law.
You're certainly making a strong case for your grasp of the intricacies
of anti-trust law. not.
>> >The choices are out there and have been out there since the dawn of PCs.
>>
>> Yup, and nobody's buying them.
>
>Shhh!!! Better not let Apple or your fellow Slashdot nutjobs on your little
>secret, Troll M. After all, they're still convinced that *SOMEBODY* out
>there is buying alternatives to Microsoft systems...
Welcome to the world of language; ever heard of a rhetorical expression?
>> Adam Smith theorized that such a
>> situation would require some anti-competitive activity,
>
>... or superior products, that is.
Your ignorance is truly staggering.
>Oh, and please, allow me. Inevitable Devlin Bullshit (tm) Response: Superior
>products cannot be used to monopolize; therefore, since Microsoft
>monopolized, their products cannot have been superior.
You know, I'm rather proud that you've gotten that far. Your statement
is wrong, of course, as well as incorrect. You are mistaken in thinking
this is a valid teleology, or that I would present it as a complete
explanation of Microsoft's inferior product. Nevertheless, it is
empirically true. It is important that you learn that it is not a cause
and effect relationship, but simply a deterministic correlation, and
thus a corroboration. But as a practical rule of thumb, you'll find it
quite functional.
>And a WHOOSH! Round and round we go, eh Troll M.?
>
>> Legal theories of anti-trust differ, of course, but almost all of them
>> agree that you are wrong.
>
>I wouldn't bet on it, Sweetie. Legal theories are for people. You are a
>slug.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. It's comments like that from people like you
that make it all worthwhile. I hate to suggest that if trolls call you
a slug, the spanking they're taking must be getting to them. I could be
wrong, of course, but as a rule of thumb it seems to work.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:01 GMT
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft was convicted of having a monopoly on PC OSes. The evidence
>> >> provided in the prosecutions argument was their use of monopoly power in
>> >> one market (PC OSes) to attempt to gain monopoly in another (web
>> >> browsers), thereby proving they have a monopoly in PC OSes.
>> >
>> >No, psycho. Assuming what you're trying to prove doesn't work.
>>
>> I didn't assume what you're trying to prove;
>>
>
>Of course not, Brainstein. You assumed what *YOU* are trying to prove - that
>Microsoft is a monopoly, and is therefore capable of using monopoly power in
>one market to gain monopoly in another.
You are mistaken, though I can understand why you made that error. The
fact that anti-trust law is rather abstract causes it to look this way,
if you fail to grasp the abstractions.
I presume that Microsoft has market power; that much is rather
undeniable, given their 90%+ market share of PC OSes. The difference
between market power and monopoly power is abstract. However, if MS has
sufficient market power to use it anti-competitively to gain market
power in another market, then they have, enjoy, and have just abused
monopoly power.
Chew on that for a while, trollboy.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:05 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >You made me curious so I looked for my special leather bound version of
>> >the Word for Windows 1.0 manual I received as a ship gift: Word for
>> >Windows 1.0 required Windows version 2.03 or later. If you didn't have
>> >Windows installed Word came with a special cut-down version of Windows
>> >so it could run without the full version being installed.
>>
>> Well, it might say that, but Word for Windows was not available until
>> Windows 3.0 was released. Your "special leather bound version" sounds
>> like a beta; I was up on all this stuff, since I was teaching courses in
>> it at the time, and I've never seen or heard of Word coming with the
>> run-time Windows.
>
>I've got an old copy of the July 1990 PC/Computing
>magazine, which had a review of Windows 3.0. It's
>really, really effusive in its praise for the product. Bill
>Gates musta blushed, if he read it.
Guffaw. Bill Gates probably wrote it.
>They show screenshots of Word for Windows running
>under Windows 3.0; but it has 2d (black and white)
>scrollbars and so on. Just like Windows 2 had.
Which part did you miss? Word 1 was available for Win3.0.
>I find this fact difficult to explain if, indeed,
>it never ran on Windows 2.
You're laughable.
>I really think you are mistaken about this.
I am really sure I am not. Is that enough for you? Believe me, I paid
a lot of attention to every new version of every major wordprocessor at
the time; it was part of my job. I'm not infallible, of course, but
you're the first person to claim otherwise. Based on a screenshot in a
PC magazine? No, you're simply mistaken.
>> (Those weren't "cut-down" versions at all, BTW, they
>> were just the regular Win2 or Win286/386 (mostly the latter) that were
>> bundled with apps. It was called "run time", but it was simply Windows.
>
>Well, that's what Windows was at the beginning.
And at the end, too. The technical relationship between Windows ME and
DOS is essentially identical to the relationship between Win386 and DOS,
a decade ago.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:06 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> >Microsoft did not risk getting anal about this until
>> >1995, when Windows 3's position was already very
>> >strong.
>>
>> "Risk getting anal"? They didn't have any ability to extend the DOS
>> monopoly until Win3, no.
>
>They waited for several years after *that* before
>bolting Windows and DOS together.
They bundled it immediately.
>Clearly they were taking no chances.
We've been through this before. There's nothing "chancy" about
anti-competitive strategies unless you don't have monopoly power.
>> The first two versions weren't just crap: they
>> weren't DOS extensions.
>
>How do you figure?
What can I say? They just weren't.
>> Would MS liked to have monopolized with
>> something earlier? Sure; they'd "like" to be able to monopolize without
>> maintaining the link to DOS, as well, but as you've noted with many of
>> your goofy looking smilies, they can't seem to pull that off.
>
>But they do keep trying. Persistance, that's what
>you've gotta love about Microsoft. :D
Repeating criminal behavior is somehow to be admired in your brain-dead
world? You are laughable.
>By the way, what sort of smilie do you prefer? :) ? :> ? ^v^ ?
None, thanks. It shows your passive-aggressive insecurity, and makes
you look even more pathetic.
>> >Until then, MS would sell DOS and Windows
>> >separately.
>>
>> No, they'd sell DOS, and try desperately to get someone to buy Windows.
>
>I don't think they were really desparate, do you?
I don't think you're interested in an intelligent conversation. Or
perhaps you are just incapable of one.
[...]
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:08 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > Microsoft did not risk getting anal about this until
>> > 1995, when Windows 3's position was already very
>> > strong.
>>
>> It's still Illegal
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>
>I hope that even you can admit that any
>law that consigns us all to DOS forevermore
>is a bad law. :D
That's pathetically moronic, Daniel. I can't believe you put your name
to such silly comments. Do you think we'll believe you're being
light-hearted, and somehow forget you're trying to excuse criminal
behavior?
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:09 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Microsoft doesn't have competitors, only victims and those who are not
>> >> yet victims. At the time you suggest GEM was a 'real competitor', it
>> >> classified as the latter. Now it is the former.
>> >
>> >I think you are letting your, um, ideology show too much.
>>
>> I don't have an ideology; just my reason.
>
>Indeed.
>
>I think you'd be well advised to keep you, uh,
>"reason" under wraps. It does not enhance your
>credibility much.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! I'll bet you expect me to believe that, too. :-D
>> And I think my reason is
>> showing you to be a passive-aggressive troll who has an agenda of
>> apologizing for a criminal monopoly. Doh!
>
>I may say this isn't the first time I've been called
>a "passive agressive" troll.
>
>What the heck does it mean? Is it a bad thing?
>
>The "passive agressive" part, I mean. I know
>all about trolling. :D
If you don't think being a troll is a bad thing (which I assume you
don't since you're a troll), I doubt you'd consider being passive
aggressive a bad thing. It's really very similar, involving being
annoying on purpose due to lack of self-esteem.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:10 GMT
Said Jon Johansan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 11:49:14
[...]
>Imagine this:
>XP is the achievement of a single code base. One set of drivers, you do not
>need to maintaine different drivers for W9x and ME and W2K. There is only
>one set of updates. Only one GUI to learn. One way to do things. It's the
>termination of a KNOWN ugly line of code. It's the end of ANYTHING remotely
>to do with DOS (other than emulation for backwards compatibility).
Earth to Jon: that's what they said about Win98 and W2K, too. (And lots
of it was said about Win95 and NT, as well.)
>XP is a godsend for tech support. No longer having to ask: what version of
>windows are you running? and then having to fork your knowledgebase and
>script based on that.
So if everybody upgrades to the newest version, Microsoft promises that
will finally be the end of the upgrade merry-go-round? Guffaw.
>I don't see XP as a wait for it or think about it upgrade, I see XP as a
>must have upgrade. Give me a shop running W2K servers and W2K/XP desktops
>and I'll show you one that has cut tech support by half just from
>eliminating support for old crap.
Sock puppets. Geez.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:11 GMT
Said Jon Johansan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 11:43:12
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9coaa0$k34$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:3aef6b26$0$41693$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > >
>> > > [snip]
>> > > >
>> > > > It's a hardware-based registration system. Perhaps they'll overlook
>a
>> > > > single hardware change, but I tend to change several things at a
>time.
>> > > > No use getting a bigger meaner video card if your MB & HD don't have
>> > > > the necessary throughput. Or at least, that's my excuse for buying a
>> > > > lot of expensive new toys all at once. :-)
>> > >
>> > > Can you say CPU Serial ID??
>> >
>> > Sure: CPU Serial ID disabled in BIOS. Hmm???
>>
>> It can be changed when the OS is loaded without needing to reboot.
>
>Via a 3rd party piece of software - if you loaded that software and enabled
>the serial number then what would be your worry?
You have some verification this software isn't already in the Windows
update software?
>i hardly suspect you would
>claim MS is going to override your BIOS setttings to extract the CPU Serial
>ID without permission and documentation - the fall out if such a thing was
>done and done secretly is too huge for MS to even THINK about doing.
Some would say the same about MS's recent actions staking their claim on
their customers' intellectual property.
>MS makes mistakes but they are not blindly stupid.
No, but they are a monopoly, and therefor dishonest, and not to be
trusted.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:12 GMT
Said Jon Johansan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 11:53:09
>"Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> You need to be A LOT more informed. This is a CPU function and has
>> NOTHING to do with the BIOS. When you disable it in BIOS, the BIOS
>> simple issues the needed instructions to turn it off.
>
>I know this.
>
>Likewise, any
>> OS during boot can choose to turn it back on.
>
>True - but Windows does not do this.
Caveat emptor, bub.
>> This was well established
>> by Intel when it first came out. In short, if you think you have ANY
>> protection by turning it off in BIOS, you have been horribly mislead.
>
>It gives DEFAULT protection. If I turn it off in BIOS then I know the ONLY
>way it's back on is if something *I* installed turns it back on.
So you've source code to all the DLLs?
>> My
>> understanding is that even a properly written application could do this
>> (turn it on and back off) if it had proper permission to access the CPU.
>
>Sure, but ONLY if *I* install such an application.
Or if MS streamlines the DLL into something *you* install.
>I think it's quite
>paranoid and stupid to think that MS would do such a thing that is so easily
>detected and suffer the fallout of this sort of privacy breech. I think this
>is a non-issue.
There's a sucker born every minute, we're told. I'll bet you didn't
even get the whole minute to yourself.
A few months ago I read a study about 'phone home' software, and the
codes they used which, despite strong denials, contained hardware
identification information and methods for tracking individuals across
several physical connections or IP addresses. It looked to me like they
used an ethernet MAC address if they could, and it would be ludicrous to
believe MS couldn't or wouldn't use the CPU ID the same way. Nor that
they wouldn't lie about it and insist that this information wasn't being
used. These codes are like header fields in the packet, rather than
data contents, and so even a bald-faced lie is possible to pull off with
plausible deniability, providing the victim is gullible enough.
--
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: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:13 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:20 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>>>And your posts are growing more and more obtuse by the day.
>>
>>Yes, I know.
>>
>>>Do you ever actually say anything with all of those words you type in
>>>or are they randomly generated by some LinoCrap babble program?
>>
>>You can't even get it when I go slow, can you?
>
>GIGO.
And here I argued against your being a computer program which just
trolls mindlessly. I've never been afraid to admit when I'm mistaken,
though.
>Speed has no effect.
Try repetition, then. Study might also be practical (reading other
things to learn enough so that you can keep up.) What else can I say,
but... think harder.
--
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: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:15 GMT
Said pookoopookoo in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 23:14:35
>> Just because you are unaware of the degradation doesn't mean it isn't
>> there. I'm afraid I've got to insist you are mistaken; the output
>> quality is an issue, though it might not be an issue of much importance
>> in your circumstance.
>
>Hehe, it's not, I've checked believe me, if not, I'd be on a mac =)
People I know more surely than I do you have said just the opposite,
explaining why they use Macs. Perhaps they're deluded, perhaps you are.
> But
>remember, what matters in my field is not absolutes, it's perceptual
>relations. If it _looks_ good, then the client is likely to be very happy
>with it. And if I don't SEE it, it effectively isn't there to be seen. What
>matters to me is perception, not reality =)
If I were a less reasonable person, I'd swear you were back-pedaling.
;-)
>> "Coordinated" maybe. 'Driven', I think, might be an overstatement.
>
>Roger that.
>
>> That all sounds a bunch like what I said; I never said you couldn't hook
>> a low end PC to high-end audio equipment. I was talking about the
>> computer AS audio equipment, not the computer WITH audio equipment.
>
>If you point me to a [serious] sound engineer that uses a PC or Mac without
>special audio hardware hooked to it, I'll grow you a genetically altered pig
>that flies =)
>
>There is no such animal imho.
I guess I should take your word for it, but it seems incredible to think
that there are no sound engineers professional enough to need a Unix
workstation.
--
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: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:15 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>On 03 May 2001 02:38:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
>wrote:
>
>>For a self confessed non coder, you seem suprisingly mis informed
>
>All it takes is one look at Freshmeat for a non coder to move on.
>Maybe all those libraries and other snippets of half finished code
>mean something special to the geeks, but to me, most of it is useless.
>
>
>>"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
>>S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
>>Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish">
>
>
>Huh?
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Check it out guys; its the 'new flatfish'. He's a reasonable man, who
just doesn't have use for exploring new software; that anonymous troll
who has posted under a dozen aliases is a *different* flatfish.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
--
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: Bought out by MS geeks...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:16 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
18:28:41 -0500;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001
>> >> [...]
>> >> >But regardless, that wasn't what I meant. I meant that most Unix
>> >> >programmers that write Windows code, tend to do so with a Unix
>mindset,
>> >[...]
>> >>
>> >> Either most do, or all tend to, Erik. Your abstraction error is
>> >> showing.
>> >
>> >What are you talking about? I never said all.
>>
>> That's the problem. If you'd have said "all tend to", then you wouldn't
>> have performed an abstraction error. If you'd said "most do", your
>> statement would likewise have been correct. You were compelled to say
>> "most tend to" because you knew for a fact that your statement is a
>> fabrication: a very small number do, because all tend to, but not very.
>
>I think you forgot to take your medication. You're not making any sense
>whatsoever.
>
>Wait, oh yeah... I'm talking to Max, what was I thinking... you almost NEVER
>make any sense.
Look, its a simple error on your part; hardly more than a mixed
metaphor. You really shouldn't be so defensive.
--
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: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:18 GMT
Said Mikkel Elmholdt in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9cq3cr$t2s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > The only amazing thing is that this IBM guy does not know the correct
>> > way of reading time ticks on a Pentium PC. In MS Visual C++ all you do
>> > is execute the following inline assembler:
>>
>> Then that's not testing Windows2K versus Linux, is it? Besides, both 2K
>> and Linux are meat to be portable, but this would render the application
>> pregram very non portable.
>
>As stated in another reply, there is not much of a "Win2K versus Linux
>benchmarking" in comparing the speed of how you acquire clock ticks. You use
>these clock tick readings to benchmark real code (at least that's what I use
>them for). The speed (or lack of it) of QueryPerformanceCounter() does not
>have any bearing on the execution speed of a typical Windows application, as
>it is rarely used in production code. The exception would be stuff like
>(pseoudo)-realtime apps, where you for instance need an accurate timestamp
>on data.
>
>Regarding the portability then you're right, at least concening Linux. But
>is Win2K still being markedet for other than Intel platforms? I haven't seen
>any blurbs here, and the "NT portability" has also sort of dwindled away
>(only Alpha supported by now, AFAIK).
Alpha is no longer supported, IIRC.
--
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: To Aaron
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:46:20 GMT
Said Ian Pulsford in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001 04:34:30
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Matthew Gardiner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>
>> >Its called "free trade on the US's terms", aka, fuck everyone else, we are
>> >going to use tarriffs and subsidies then bitch and moan because China does
>> >the same thing!
>>
>> Free trade does not require international free trade. Its called "free
>> trade for US firms within the US", and whether foreign companies get to
>> participate is entirely up to the US, and whether we think it would
>> benefit us; it is presumed if allowed that it would benefit the foreign
>> company, which is why we use tariffs and subsidies rather than simple
>> regulation. If it is worth their while to overcome this 'uneven playing
>> field' (actually an even playing field, taking both the international
>> capital and the international production into account) then they can
>> benefit from the opportunity of free trade within the U.S.
>>
>> When it comes down to it, if you are unable to say "fuck everyone else"
>> if it is necessary to avoid "fuck me", then you are simply not being
>> honest, or reasonable.
>>
>> I'm not claiming that every aspect of the U.S. position on tariffs and
>> subsidies is reasonable, or even honest. I'm merely pointing out that
>> presuming otherwise is begging the question.
>>
>
>So what you're saying is that the rhetoric does not match the practice.
What "the rhetoric" are you referring to?
>That has been obvious for a long time but I guess it is too much to ask
>politicians to say what they really mean. There is no such thing as a
>"level playing field" or "free trade", never has been, probably never
>will be.
Not in an absolute sense, of course not. These are abstractions,
metaphors, even. Tariffs and subsidies are used to ensure a level
playing field (its effects on those outside the playing field are not of
direct concern) to allow free trade (within that playing field), as I've
said. Sometimes they do that well and sometimes they're used
counter-productively. Whining about politicians as a handy "them" to
demonize is just rhetoric.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
