Linux-Advocacy Digest #366, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 14:13:02 EDT
Contents:
5th Annual Linux Showcase & Conference: Call for Papers (Tiffany Peoples)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Chad Everett)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Bob Hauck)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (GreyCloud)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (GreyCloud)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (GreyCloud)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JS PL")
Microsoft "Windows for Linux" ("Robert Kent")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: where's the linux performance? (pip)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: where's the linux performance? (pip)
Microsoft "Windows for Linux" ("Robert Kent")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tiffany Peoples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 5th Annual Linux Showcase & Conference: Call for Papers
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:36:53 -0700
5th Annual Linux Showcase & Conference (ALS 2001)
November 6-10, 2001
Oakland, CA USA
http://www.linuxshowcase.org
Sponsored by USENIX and the Atlanta Linux Showcase, Inc., in cooperation
with Linux International
Now in its fifth year, the Annual Linux Showcase & Conference
http://www.linuxshowcase.org continues its remarkable development as the
premier technical Linux conference, attracting talks by experts on
everything from kernel internals to Internet services, panels discussing
the state of the Kernel, Linux in the real world, xfree86, and more.
And this year, ALS breaks with tradition by moving out of Atlanta to the
SF Bay Area!
The ALS 2001 Program Committee invites you to contribute your ideas,
proposals, and papers for tutorials, invited talks, refereed technical
papers, and work-in-progress reports. We welcome submissions that
address any and all issues relating to Linux and the Open Source world.
The Call for Papers with submission guidelines and suggested topics is
now available at http://www.linuxshowcase.org
Submissions are due June 5, 2001
The first XFree86 Technical Conference will run concurrently with ALS on
November 7 & 8. If you are a developer building applications and systems
using XFree86, plan to submit a paper or attend this event. For more
information check: http://www.usenix.org/events/xfree86/
Please join us and participate in the premier technical conference for
Linux enthusiasts and professionals! We look forward to seeing you in
Oakland in November 2001!
===============================================================
5th Annual Linux Showcase & Conference (ALS 2001) is sponsored by
USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems Association, and the Atlanta
Linux Showcase, in cooperation with Linux International.
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 12:29:16 -0500
On Wed, 9 May 2001 11:05:46 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 09 May 2001 00:03:21 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 20:25:59
>> >> > [...]
>> >> > >Lets put it this way... if Eric used a 4-bit key and did everything
>he
>> >> > >says he would do, NSA would have it deciphered in less than a
>minute.
>> >> >
>> >> > The NSA? Sure, 'less than a minute' is accurate, but 'a few
>> >> > milliseconds' is more precise.
>> >>
>> >> Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of data.
>I'll
>> >> give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and the
>keys
>> >> value is 1.
>> >>
>>
>> What is it going to take to make you understand that you're not using
>> a 1-bit key? You're key also includes a translation table.
>
>A translation table is not part of the key, it's part of the algorithm.
>
Please use your algorithm to communicate with another party and allow us
to observe the encrypted communications.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:37:38 GMT
On Tue, 8 May 2001 23:15:25 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The encoded data is (just the one line, not including carriage return):
>
> 2jhGjyD<qYwDgilj0sohkVuAy.
Anybody can make an unbreakable code if you only need to keep one line
of data secret. The problem comes with trying to use the code to
encrypt lots of data over a period of time. Relying on a secret
algorithm is just horribly bad practice, no matter how good you think it
is. It takes only one disgruntled former employee to destroy your
scheme.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:44:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 9 May 2001 12:43:37 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >You're being deliberately dense. "Word does it straight away".
>>
>> You are apparently missing my point. Word does "it"(?) straight away?
>> What is "it"?
>>
>> No telling what "it" is, of course; Word does really weird things with
>> embedded graphics.
>
>Are you really this dense? Word inserts embedded graphics!
Actually, as I understand it, Word inserts embedded OLE, COM,
or ActiveX references (I don't know offhand which) -- one can
even double-click on, say, a graphics file and edit it with MS Paint,
or other such registered program for that object. (Again, the
convenience thing.)
The naive user probably won't care what he's editing -- I'm
not sure if the object refers to its originator or is duplicated,
and it may depend on how the inclusion is done -- but it works
very well, if it doesn't corrupt itself.
Unfortunately, it tends to do that too often. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 9d:06h:12m actually running Linux.
This is not a .sig.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:47:23 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 9 May 2001 05:12:10
> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> Why do I see so many Linux distros that have some good programs provided
> >> written with GPL code for sale?
> >
> >Because people are nice.
>
> Because your contention that the GPL prevents charging for software is
> false.
>
> >I could *demand* you to give me your GPL code, both as binary & source, and
> >you would have no choice but to comply, and the only thing you could charge
> >me for is S&H.
>
> You misunderstand the GPL, Ayende. No problem, really. It is a complex
> document, and so it is not uncommon that someone would misinterpret it.
> THe GPL does not allow anyone to "demand" that they provide you with
> their code. Or rather, it doesn't prevent them from demanding, but it
> doesn't say anything about having to comply. Only that you cannot
> charge for licenses, and you cannot distribute binaries without
> distributing source. There is no compulsory distribution; I'm not
> entirely sure where you got that idea.
>
> >My problem with GPL, again, is not that it prevents embracing & extending
> >the code, that I consider as a good thing. I don't like the fact that you
> >can't *use* it with any other code.
>
> You can use it with all the other code you want. You just can't use a
> GPL library without infecting your program. So use an LGPL library;
> that's what it's for.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
You're quite correct. I purchased GNU PRO Tool kit and Source Browser
for $150. No source code was ever given for the Source Browser but
there was for the compiler. The source code browser was written by
Cygnus using the aforementioned compiler with the source. I don't think
Ayende will have any problems writting and selling for linux or UNIX.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:55:36 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 20:25:59
> > > > [...]
> > > > >Lets put it this way... if Eric used a 4-bit key and did everything
> he
> > > > >says he would do, NSA would have it deciphered in less than a minute.
> > > >
> > > > The NSA? Sure, 'less than a minute' is accurate, but 'a few
> > > > milliseconds' is more precise.
> > >
> > > Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of data.
> I'll
> > > give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and the
> keys
> > > value is 1.
> > >
> > > The encoded data is (just the one line, not including carriage return):
> > >
> > > 2jhGjyD<qYwDgilj0sohkVuAy.
> > >
> > > Hell, I'll even give you hints when you need them. Here's the first,
> it's
> > > plain text words, but the values are not in ASCII.
> > >
> > > So, show me how simple it is to crack. Hell, after a week, I'll even
> tell
> > > you what the clear text is, and let's see if you can figure out a way to
> > > recreate a second encoded text that is encoded using the exact same
> > > algorithm. I'll bet you can't.
> >
> > Who said "WE" had the equipment?? But I'll bet that NSA has already
> > read this and has deciphered it. Doubt that they'll respond to it tho.
> > I've seen them decipher messages out of a continuous data stream. There
> > was no beginning of the message and no apparent end of the message. But
> > they did it anyway. One of the Doctors could actually look at the data
> > encrypted stream and could see where the message started and ended. I
> > couldn't see if my life depended on it.
>
> Yeah, right. Now you expect us to believe that you have watched NSA
> researchers cracking mysterious "continuous data streams". Had you actually
> seen this, you wouldn't be able to talk about it.
Yes, used to work for them back in the late 60's.
Sure glad I got out of there too!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:56:30 -0700
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 May 2001 05:03:48 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 20:25:59
> >> > > [...]
> >> > > >Lets put it this way... if Eric used a 4-bit key and did everything
> >he
> >> > > >says he would do, NSA would have it deciphered in less than a minute.
> >> > >
> >> > > The NSA? Sure, 'less than a minute' is accurate, but 'a few
> >> > > milliseconds' is more precise.
> >> >
> >> > Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of data.
> >I'll
> >> > give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and the
> >keys
> >> > value is 1.
> >> >
> >> > The encoded data is (just the one line, not including carriage return):
> >> >
> >> > 2jhGjyD<qYwDgilj0sohkVuAy.
> >> >
> >> > Hell, I'll even give you hints when you need them. Here's the first,
> >it's
> >> > plain text words, but the values are not in ASCII.
> >> >
> >> > So, show me how simple it is to crack. Hell, after a week, I'll even
> >tell
> >> > you what the clear text is, and let's see if you can figure out a way to
> >> > recreate a second encoded text that is encoded using the exact same
> >> > algorithm. I'll bet you can't.
> >>
> >> Who said "WE" had the equipment?? But I'll bet that NSA has already
> >> read this and has deciphered it. Doubt that they'll respond to it tho.
> >> I've seen them decipher messages out of a continuous data stream. There
> >> was no beginning of the message and no apparent end of the message. But
> >> they did it anyway. One of the Doctors could actually look at the data
> >> encrypted stream and could see where the message started and ended. I
> >> couldn't see if my life depended on it.
> >
> >Yeah, right. Now you expect us to believe that you have watched NSA
> >researchers cracking mysterious "continuous data streams". Had you actually
> >seen this, you wouldn't be able to talk about it.
> >
>
> I think Greycloud used to do some with either for or with the NSA, but I also
> believe his understanding about what the NSA can do against modern encryption
> technologies is out-of-date.
>
> A better test of your worthless encryption scheme would be to distribute your
> key: (the index and the translation table) to another party and use it to
> communicate with that party and allow us to observe the channel between you
> and this other party.
Yes, its out-of-date but then so is Erics' assertions about his 4-bit
code.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:59:07 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Pancho Villa in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 07 May 2001 11:21:49
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> Said Steve Sheldon in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 6 May 2001 22:08:54
> >> >"Pancho Villa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> The fact of the matter is that COM and DCOM were MS ripoffs of IBM's
> >> >> SOM and DSOM. OLE is simply bloated, buggy, 2nd-rate technology.
To
> >> >> this day, SOM and DSOM kick COM and DCOM's butt! Tragically, along
> >> >> with IBM's OpenDoc, another fantastic technology, SOM and DSOM have
> >> >> been pretty much destroyed by a criminal monopoly, and we are all
> >> >> suffering. :(
> >> >
> >> >Yes, IBM has certainly destroyed a lot of their own technologies
through
> >> >bungled marketing.
> >>
> >I really do not think that a lot of IBM's famed failures have to do
> >with "marketing failures", "bungled marketing", etc. After all, IBM
> >is the biggest IT corporation in the world. They sell more software
> >than Microsoft! Their profits are larger than MS' revenues! They
> >have 300,000 employees - 4th largest company on the planet. Seen
> >their stock price lately? You would think that if IBM could not
> >market at all, they would not be so successful.
Where do you get - 4th largest on the planet? Here's what I get from
fortune500.com:
IBM
2000 Sales (mil.): $88,396
1-Yr. Sales Growth: 1.0%
2000 Net Inc. (mil.): $8,093
1-Yr. Net Inc. Growth: 4.9%
Ranking on Fortune 500 list - 8
World 500 list - 16
Microsoft
2000 Sales (mil.): $22,956
1-Yr. Sales Growth: 16.3%
2000 Net Inc. (mil.): $9,421
1-Yr. Net Inc. Growth: 21.0%
2000 Employees: 39,100
1-Yr. Employee Growth: 24.5%
Fotune 500 rank - 79
World 500 rank - 216
Microsoft "Net" income appears to be 1.4 billion MORE than IBM
AS a side note Microsoft is rated #37 on the list of best companies to work
for. IBM didn't even make the list.
Microsoft Employees
# in U.S.: 23,161
# Outside U.S.: 15,855
% Minorities (non-Caucasian): 25%
% Women: 30%
Voluntary Turnover ( 1999 ): 10%
Hiring
# New Jobs (1 year): 4,242
Job Growth (full- and part-time): 22%
Applicants: N/A
Job Titles/Salary
Most common entry-level job (professional): Sofware Design Engineer
Entry-level salary: $45,000
Most common entry-level job (production): Administrative Assistant
Entry-level salary: $30,000
Perks
Professional Training (hrs./yr.): N/A
Other: N/A
Summary
The antitrust conviction did not dampen the spirit of Softies; 87% say
"management is honest and ethical in its business practices." Employees also
praise the casual dress code. Says one: "Shorts and T-shirts help me to
relax."
> >This is true. But IBM and MS have acted very differently. When IBM
> >was found guilty, they followed all of the government's restrictions
> >to the letter of the law.
Of course they did! So has Microsoft.
I'm still chuckling about the Media Player integration into XP. It's the
ultimate "fuck you" to the DOJ and Jackson, because they're STILL not
breaking the law, and it (integration) was the basis for this whole recent
court battle.
>>And some of these restrictions were harsh,
> >indeed! IBM admitted it broke the law, and displayed contrition.
Maybe it's because IBM DID break the law! Microsoft actually hasn't broken
any law therefore has nothing to admit to.
>>As
> >a result of having gone round with the government a few times on
> >antitrust, IBM's corporate culture has now completely changed, and
> >they studiously avoid breaking antitrust law. Compare the above
> >behavior to MS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Do you think MS might have a come-back in a couple of decades, like IBM
> has with their Linux advocacy?
Do you think you'll still be a usenet kook in a couple of decades?
I think you will. tee hee...
------------------------------
From: "Robert Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft "Windows for Linux"
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:58:28 GMT
Microsoft should consider producing "Windows for Linux". It could be their
own version of Wine, but it would be nearly 100% compatible with the latest
version of Windows. Microsoft could require that users have a retail copy of
Windows to make this work.
It's a win-win situation. Linux users could run nearly all of the available
Windows applications, and Microsoft would still make money selling Windows
licenses.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:59:54 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
> > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 20:25:59
> > >> [...]
> > >> >Lets put it this way... if Eric used a 4-bit key and did everything he
> > >> >says he would do, NSA would have it deciphered in less than a minute.
> > >>
> > >> The NSA? Sure, 'less than a minute' is accurate, but 'a few
> > >> milliseconds' is more precise.
> > >
> > >Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of data.
> I'll
> > >give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and the
> keys
> > >value is 1.
> >
> > Give it to the NSA, lamer. Guffaw!
>
> In other words, you can't back up what you claim. If it is so insecure, it
> should be quite easy for you to crack. Here's another hint, it uses and
> extremely simple encoding mechanism.
Well then, you go right ahead and sell your "secure" coding scheme. I'm
sure your customers will be very happy about the security it offers.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:59:47 GMT
On Tue 08 May 2001 10:53, Brent R wrote:
> Chronos Tachyon wrote:
[Snip]
>> ... I swore off Windows for my own computer, and purged my hard
>> drive of all Microsoft products. It means I have to do without
>> StarCraft, but it's a small price to pay to be rid of their lies and FUD.
>
> It has never ceased to astound me that people would do away with their
> favorite apps just for a moderate increase in OS quality. That's one
> thing I've never really understood about this movement I guess.
>
> To me, I like Linux but Windows has so many great apps that I cannot do
> without it.
>
StarCraft and other games are a fine way to blow off steam, but they've
never been the primary reason why I use my computer. When I want to play
games today, I just play Quake3 instead.
--
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: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:05:28 +0100
Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> I have a buddy that is a Java nut whom told me that some of the fastest
> JVM's are on Linux.
Erm - he can dream on!
>Keep in mind he's a windows guy, mostly. Likewise,
> I have seen lots of benchmarks that show this to be true.
really?
>It seems that
> not all JVMs are created equal. I would guess that the OS has little
> to nothing to do with the performance of a JVM, rather, the bulk of the
> responsibility squarely falls on the JVM implementor's shoulders.
..and the OS does have a fundamental role as in all programs!
> Just my 2 cents...
keep the change.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 14:04:29 -0400
On Wed, 9 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001=20
>> On Tue, 8 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001=20
>>>> On Mon, 7 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:32:49=
=20
>>>>>> Maxie:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>And what is then is "the API itself", but a description of the API? =
=20
>>>>>> That=B4s like saying a paperback of "The Great Gatsby" is a descript=
ion=20
>>>>>> of "The Great Gatsby". It makes no sense.
>>>>> I don't see why. It seems to me that a copy of "The Great Gatsby" wo=
uld
>>>>> be a rather ideal and precise description of "The Great Gatsby". Now
>>>>> ask yourself "is it a description of the intellectual property?"
>>>> If you think that, then you're more deluded than I thought. A copy of
>>>> "The Great Gatsby" is a copy of "The Great Gatsby", not a description
>>>> of same. A description is one level removed from the thing itself and
>>>> is "about" the thing.
>>> It certainly isn't the description you would expect to get if you asked
>>> merely for a description. Yet it is the most complete description you
>>> could possibly have.
>> No, it's not "the most complete description." It *is* the thing.
> Yea. And as I said, I can think of no better response to a request for
> a description. I don't have time to do your homework for you, you see.
> The book is a physical thing; its description is rather arbitrary. The
> reason you ask for a description is so you can know the thing. But if
> you get a description of an API, you don't just "know the thing", you
> HAVE the thing. Get it?
You're wrong -- as usual. I'll make this painfully clear, and then
leave you on your merry little brainless way. If one gets a description
of an API one doesn't *HAVE* the thing. If I buy a book about JDBC (an
API), this does not mean that I *have* the JDBC API. It means that I
have a book *about* and *describing* the JDBC API. The JDBC API is
implemented in multiple libraries as appropriate to the back end
requirements -- but the API is consistent across those libraries, and I
can program against it without problem.
>>> Yet, if someone were to ask me, "What is the Great Gatsby?", I can thin=
k
>>> of no more complete answer I could give him than to hand him the book.
>> If someone asked you to "describe _The Great Gatsby_", then if you gave
>> them the book, you'd simply be an ass and not answering the request at
>> all.
> Like I said; I don't have time to do your homework for you.
In other words, you're an ass.
>>> My point here is that there is a rhetorical level which your statement
>>> is true, but that is mere philosophy. In the real world, it becomes
>>> pedantry. The API is nothing but its description.
>> False. But you knew that, even though you pretend otherwise.
> Then what is it? (As if you weren't willing to endlessly regress,
> making your definition unfalsifiable and meaningless with each cycle...)
I've described this in dozens of posts to address your stupidity. I
believe that you are a pig, and I've been foolishly making you try to
learn to sing. And I'm quite done with you.
-f
--=20
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:07:43 +0100
Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I can't speak to KMail or Forte, but StarOffice under Windows, even with
> > competent hardware (600MHz PIII, 256Meg, W2k) takes well over 20 seconds to
> > start the first time, while Word takes 8 seconds. The second time around
> > (with lots of stuff remaining in cache) it's less than five seconds for both
> > programs.
>
> Keep in mind that Microsoft loads a lot of the DLLs used by office when the
> system starts. Additionally, that's one of the reasons why the office bar is
> preferred to be started when the system starts. It helps preload even more.
> On top of that, the OS is hugely biased toward office applications which
> specifically organizes the office data to load much, much, much faster from
> disk. I guess I'm trying to say that you can not compare load time of office
> with any other application, let alone different applications on different OSs.
>
> A more meaningful result, but still not fair, would be to load star Office,
> unload it, making sure you have enough memory to cache it, then load it
> again, this time timing it. This type of behavior is more in sync with the
> types of things that Windows does with office.
You could try the same with any Linux app and a 2.4 series kernel.
> I've heard some other rumors of office specific caching that goes on once you've
> installed office, but I've never seen them confirmed.
That's because they are not true.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Microsoft "Windows for Linux"
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 18:04:23 GMT
-cross posted to comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine-
Microsoft should consider producing "Windows for Linux". It could be their
own version of Wine, but it would be nearly 100% compatible with the latest
version of Windows. Microsoft could require that users have a retail copy of
Windows to make this work.
It's a win-win situation. Linux users could run nearly all of the available
Windows applications, and Microsoft would still make money selling Windows
licenses.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 14:08:02 -0400
On Wed, 9 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
>> On Tue, 8 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> JD brought up the idea of Cliff's Notes, of course. Cliff's Notes are
>>> limited to books which are in the public domain, I think.
>> The problem, of course, is that you don't think.
>> They are not limited
>> to books in the public domain (or have you never seen CN on _The Sound
>> and the Fury_?) Heck; even _The Great Gatsby_ is still, I believe,
>> under copyright protection.
> So do they pay any royalties, or have they ever been challenged in
> court? Do you have any details?
None needed; they're covered under fair use provisions. They're not
reproducing the text except in fair use excerpts; additionally, they're
not derivative of the original works in any way.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
