Linux-Advocacy Digest #237, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 23:13:03 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: MS Must be getting really desperate (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("pookoopookoo")
Re: MS pushing retailers to hide Linux? (Terry Porter)
Re: Shared library hell (Terry Porter)
Re: I'm "Giving Back": Free Distro Sets! ("pookoopookoo")
Re: Shared library hell (Terry Porter)
Re: The upgrade (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux disgusts me ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux disgusts me ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS Must be getting really desperate ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS pushing retailers to hide Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: where's the linux performance? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:33:09 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
18:43:12 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>> >> So does Windows. Remove "Command.com" from a Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.1,
>3.11,
>> >> 95, or 98 system, and tell us what happens.
>> >
>> >Command.com is a shell. It's like /bin/sh in Unix. This
>> >doesn't mean Unix "runs on" /bin/sh.
>>
>> Yet despite this, Windows 'runs on' command.com. Just boot up Win98 in
>> DOS mode, and then type 'win' at the prompt. You'll see what I mean.
>
>I think you need to study up a bit. Command.com is
>a shell and it lets you start other software- including
>Windows.
I think you need to read more carefully.
>Just as with /bin/sh, you can crank up X-Windows,
>your favorite window manager, etc.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>If anything Windows software is less dependant
>on command.com than Unix software is on /bin/sh.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
>It's not very reasonble to say that Windows
>"runs on" command.com. It distorts the
>real relationship.
Microsoft distorts the real relationship more; that's the point. No,
Daniel, I am not even a little bit confused about the relationship of
command.com to DOS or Windows. No, I do not think it has the analytical
relationship that my metaphoric description indicates. But it is simply
more correct, for all its inaccuracies, then Microsoft's.
>> >Windows still uses DOS for a few things- for instance,
>> >I believe it still thunks down into DOS to access the
>> >current date/time.
>>
>> "DOS", whatever abstraction you care to use that label for, is entirely
>> a part of Windows, the very basis of Win3 and Win9x, the *operating
>> system* in use.
>
>In a marketing sense this is very true, but technically
>there's a very stark distinction- real mode vs. protected
>mode, in essense.
I am not stupid enough to believe Microsoft when they claim "enhanced
mode" (real mode was "non-mode", where Windows ran as an app, as I
explained [and you disputed; interesting how now you've dropped that
argument, without bothering to admit to your mistake] was the case in
the first two versions) is somehow something that Windows does. It is a
DOS extender, not very much different than EMM386. Running EMM386
didn't magically make "EMM" the OS instead of DOS, and I don't see any
reason to believe that Windows does, either.
>> MS likes to play games trying to change the label,
>> attributing 'operating system' capabilities to "Windows", instead of to
>> DOS, as is technically correct. They're far more interested in
>> marketing than technical validity, though.
>
>Yes, they are.
>
>Technically, though, most of the stuff OSes
>traditionally do, Windows does without invoking
>DOS.
"Invoking"? I have no need for magical spells.
>This is because DOS sucks so hard. :D
As does Windows, and all the other monopoly crapware. :D
>There *are* places when DOS code still
>executes, but not very many.
I don't care about 'executing code', either. Whether we are talking
about marketing (in which MS defrauded their customers) or technology
(in which MS simply lied, frequently and routinely) WinDOS (Win3.x...ME)
is just monopoly crapware, Microsoft is just a criminal organization,
and you are just a troll who likes to get a spanking.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:33:10 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
20:53:03 GMT;
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > MS-DOS and DR-DOS were *both* lousy things
>> > to saddle Windows with. I'm not endorsing MS-DOS
>> > over DR-DOS; I'm endorsing Windows with as little
>> > of either as can be managed.
>>
>> Windows COULD NOT run without some DOS underneath. DR-DOS was superior.
>> And Microsoft used it monoply power to push DR-DOS out of the market.
>
>I don't see that DR-DOS was superior as a platform
>for Windows.
Nice squirming, troll-boy.
>The real trick was to supercede as much of DOS
>as possible, not to use another DOS.
No wonder you find it so easy to be clueless; you think there's a
difference between something that is like DOS, and something that is
"another DOS". Its a wonder you can even find the power switch.
--
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:33:11 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>> >Oh yes. Most certainly. Even Windows 3 was
>> >an orthodox DOS program, when in real
>> >mode.
>>
>> It is still a DOS program, if unorthodox (known as a "DOS extender")
>> when in protected or enhanced mode.
>
>I suppose you could say that, but it's really a semantic
>question.
All questions are semantic; nice squirming. Yes, you not only COULD say
it like that, if you don't you're mistaken. Guffaw.
>It's not a DOS program like other DOS programs
>except when in real mode. And it doesn't have real mode
>anymore. :D
Define "like other DOS programs".
[...]
>Well, it's not *just* a "DOS extender" it replaces major DOS
>services.
No, it just extends them.
>You can say that it is DOS that provides the memory
>management, disk access, multitasking, program loading,
>and other "OS traits", but it still won't be true of current
>version of Windows.
You can say that DOS is the OS, or you could lie. That pretty much sums
it up.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: MS Must be getting really desperate
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 02:34:42 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 17:05:36 -0600, kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Their paid trolls are getting really desperate. This reminds me of the FUD
> campaign against OS/2. You would think we were removing their ability to
> choose which os they are using by the way they are attacking linux in this
> newsgroup.
>
Yes its quite interesting. The Wintrolls have a definite agenda on COLA
I think.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 22:41:49 -0400
> But Wine is not an emulator. Currently, most Wine binaries are compiled
> for i386 and many times with debug enabled. That's why it's slow.
> Recompile for i686 and turn off debug and it is quite fast.
>
> Gary
Isn't there a place to download the binaries precompiled (I'm sure there
is)? I've never compiled anything in my life =) I think if I had to
recompile my kernel, I would go into coronary arrest.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: MS pushing retailers to hide Linux?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 02:41:32 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 17:13:56 -0600, kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should see compusa in boulder. They have a LOT of linux stuff.
> Everything from the dists to firewalls apps etc. When a new dist version
> comes out they usually have several pallettes of it around for the first
> two weeks or so. They did this with both Redhat 7.0 and Mandrake 7.2 and
> they have a bunch of Suse there also.
>
> Some of the salesmen said they sell a lot of linux there.
>
> The future is certainly looking brighter around here. Of course with both
> sun and ibm nearbye it is easier to find a linux or unix job then to find
> an ms job.
In Perth Western Australia, the main technical bookseller, has a massive
Linux section too, all the O'Rieley books, everything!
I'd say the area is HALF of the size of all the Windows stuff.
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Is Micosoft up to their old tricks again.
>>
>> I went into a Best Buy store looking to get the new version of Linux.
<snip>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Shared library hell
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 02:43:43 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 20:40:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux doesn't cope with this at all.
FUD
>
> How many times have you tried to rpm a package only to be told you
> need a certain version of some library?
LOTS!
But then I dontuse RPM,and Redhat Pagage Manager is NOT Linux.
> Linux is a mess....
Nonsense.
>
> flatfish
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm "Giving Back": Free Distro Sets!
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 22:47:34 -0400
Cool! Now I don't have to download Mandrake 8...(It's fearsome! 2 PACKED
discs)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Shared library hell
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 02:49:12 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 19:43:00 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So linux does not suffer from shared library hell?
Not to the extent of Windows, thats for sure.
>
> Symbolic linking gets round this problem, I'm told.
yes it does.
>
> However, say I have libqt.so.2.2.4 and libqt.so.2.3.0. Both would be
> symbolically linked as libqt.so.2 - so unless an application links directly
> to each individual version, it may get the wrong version.
Yes thats true.
>
> You would think that libqt.so.2.2.4 is older than libqt.so.2.3.0 - however,
> there's a difference. One was built with an _older_ version of gcc - 2.3.0!
> This fact alone is enough to break some applications - they might work with
> 2.3.0 but they fail due to the incompatability with gcc.
Yes thats always a possibility.
>
> So how does Linux cope with this?
Recompile ?
The tools are there, and all free, you can get any version of gcc you want.
But why the focus on KDE Pete, I'm stillwaiting for you to tell me what
KDE does for you that other Wm's cant?
>
> --
> Pete
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: The upgrade
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 02:54:37 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 11:08:36 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >> > Did I leave out anything actually relevant?
>> >>
>> >> I thought so.
>> >
>> > Like what?
>> I posted that my system detects sound cards, and that no manual intervention
>> is neccessary, you cut that out and didn't even mark it 'snipped'.
>
> Because it wasn't relevant!
I thought it was, and besides, you didn't even notate that youd snipped
something.
>
> --
> Pete
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:57:21 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 21:08:46 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Talk to Terry Porter.
>>
>> He's been using Linux since somewhere back in the Jurassic period and
>> denies all of these problems.
>>
>> BTW you "can" change the font size to 100dpi but run the risk of
>> aborting the entire system is you don't know what you are doing.
>>
>
>I've never had that problem. Of course you never had either.
Try messing up the line you have to edit to change from 75dpi to
100dpi and see what happens.
>> Search on "Font De-Uglification" for information because these yo-yo's
>> have a How-To for just about everything.
>
>100 dpi and anti-alias fonts are standard on Redhat 7.1. 100 dpi has
>been there ever since I can remember.
>
>Gary
1. So are 10000 other packages.
2. You are assuming the person knows how to use them and change the
appriate entries to activate them.
3.Typical Linux
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:58:18 GMT
On 06 May 2001 01:28:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>The other issue is that there are many stable and reliable
>Linux WM's used every day by many Linux users.
>
>ie
>Fvwm
>Blackbox
>IceWm
>Windowmaker
>Xfwm
>
>--
>Kind Regards
>Terry
And then there is 95 percent of the rest of the world that don't.
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 03:01:56 GMT
On 06 May 2001 01:07:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>Wouldn t know a decent Linux app if it bit his ass off.
That's because I have yet to see one.
>To this Wintroll, the world is Winaudio, nothing more.
No. The world is applications I want/need to use and even excluding
DAW ones, Linux is in the dumps as far as quality/useful applications
are concerned.
You can barely give away that Freshmeat list.
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS Must be getting really desperate
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 03:03:06 GMT
On 06 May 2001 02:34:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>On Sat, 5 May 2001 17:05:36 -0600, kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Their paid trolls are getting really desperate. This reminds me of the FUD
>> campaign against OS/2. You would think we were removing their ability to
>> choose which os they are using by the way they are attacking linux in this
>> newsgroup.
>>
>Yes its quite interesting. The Wintrolls have a definite agenda on COLA
>I think.
Yea. We enjoy pushing your buttons and watching you twitch Terry.
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS pushing retailers to hide Linux?
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 03:06:10 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 23:09:52 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is Micosoft up to their old tricks again.
>
>I went into a Best Buy store looking to get the new version of Linux.
>
>The last I bought was Red Hat 6.1 and it was displayed prominently in the
>"operating systems" section along with Mandrake, TurboLinux, and MacMillian
>distros that took up 3 or 4 shelves next to displays of Windows and Mac Os'.
>
>This time the OS section only contained the various Windows operating
>systems, and I had to ask a clerk where the Linux products were. She stated
>that "we keep them well hidden" and took me to the "computer books" section
>where on a single bottom shelf was only the Suse distro for Linux.
>
>I know this type of thing is a common business practice, particularly for
>grocery stores, with cereals, canned foods, etc . . . so don't know if this
>is necessarily illegal or not, but so MSish.
>
They keep them hidden because they hate processing the returns and
listening to some poor loser scream at them when he tries to install
Linux and wipes out his hard drive.
Most of the large chains are forced to stock certain items due to
corporate policy.
Ask some sales clerks at random what their customers think about Linux
and you will hear some pretty funny stories.
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 03:09:15 GMT
Welcome to the joy of Linux!!!!
Flatfish
On Sat, 5 May 2001 20:00:05 -0400, "Jonathan Martindell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I'm just a beginning Linux user. I've recently tried Linux-Mandrake 7.2 and
>then Linux-Mandrake 8.0 and also Caldera OpenLinux 2.4. I've been very
>disappointed in the performance of all of these. My machine, I think,
>should be more than adaquate: 708MHz celeron fcppga cpu, 256 meg rams, 10
>gig partition for linux (20 for windows 2000) on Ultra66. I've tried
>running KDE, Gnome, and Icevm. Programs like KMail take over 10 seconds to
>load. StarOffice takes a really long time too. When I'm using win2000 I
>never have this problem. Even on comparable software. Forte for Java and
>StarOffice both load many, many times faster in windows vs linux. Do you
>think that my linux isn't configured for maximum performance? I've spent
>some time looking through websites and have noticed an increase when I use
>the hdparm tool but nothing extrodinary. If this is the extent of the linux
>performance than I don't think I'll be sticking with it. However, if it
>just requires more work than setting up windows and you ultimately get
>greater performance than I will definitely stick with it. I enjoy tinkering
>with computers in that way. What do all of you think of this? Do you know
>of any websites that show the results of linux benchmarks? Any help would
>be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>
>Sincerely,
>Jonathan
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
