Linux-Advocacy Digest #421, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Andrew Leonard: "Microsoft: Free-software licenses are the devil's (Matthew
Gardiner)
To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Drive Partitions (None)
Re: De we need (or is there) a GPL Legal Defense Fund ? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Cold feet or Reality Check? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Andrew Leonard: "Microsoft: Free-software licenses are the devil's
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:11:42 +1200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > Visio (from Visio Corp.), Microsof bought the company, which is
> > perfectly acceptable in the free market, however, then claimed it was
> > their "innovations" that bought it into being, thats the part that
> > pisses people off.
>
> Microsoft and AlGore are currently arguing over who REALLY did it.
>
Didn't al gore create the internet? ;)
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:21:27 +1200
I have gracefully moved from using StarOffice 5.2, and purchase
Wordperfect Suite 2000 for Linux. I constantly hear the mantra that
"Until MS Office comes to Linux, it (linux) will never grace the
harddrives of large corporate desktops". If that is the case, what is
Wordperfect Suite 2000 missing?
Wordprocessor: Wordperfect 9
Database: Paradox 9
Spreadsheet:Quattro Pro 9
Presentations: Presentations 9
Calender/Scheduler/Address Book/Memo's: Corel Central 9
Browser/Email: Netscape 4.76, I have only had it crash once on me, in
the 2 months I have owned this copy of SuSE Linux 7.1.
So, whats missing? Where is the huge gap between Wordperfect Suite and
MS Office Pro?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: None <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Drive Partitions
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 08:27:12 -0500
On Thu, 10 May 2001 23:34:09 +0100, Robert Pearce
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can you tell me then, where I can get 16 cheap 8MB 30 pin SIMMs for my
>small machine ?
ebay... I just saw 4 8meg simms go for $1.99 + sh USPS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: De we need (or is there) a GPL Legal Defense Fund ?
Date: 11 May 2001 13:24:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9 May 2001 17:09:48 GMT, Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Suppose MS took some GPL'd software and wrapped in up into Windows. Let's
>>>pluck an example out of the air and say it was a TCP/IP stack. The FSF says
>>>"Whoa! you can't do that, that's a violation of the GPL!". Microsoft flips
>>>them the finger and says "See you in court". Microsoft wins and the GPL is
>>>exposed as rubbish. What happpens then? The copyright is still held by the
>>>author (or perhaps the FSF). Microsoft now has no license to distribute the
>>>code *at all*. The GPL is no more. RIP.
>>>
>>>Net result for everyone is a lose, so nobody will allow it to go that far.
>>
>>Actually, the judge could declare the GPL only partially void, or
>>partially unenforcable. The judge could, for example, declare
>>that none of the "you must give away the code" stuff is
>>valid, and turn it into something like the BSDL.
>
>I don't think that would be possible (see section 7 of the GPL).
The judge can say "ignore section 7".
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:24:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> =
> >>>>> "Erik" =3D=3D Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> =
> >> This is incorrect. A true one-time-pad would be generated by
> >> reading a naturally random source of noise that an attacker
> >> would have great difficulty introducing patterns into. A good
> >> example would be the timing between decays in a sample of a
> >> radioactive isotope.
> =
> Erik> Which is something an average person can get access to, how?
> =
> Linux has a /dev/random as a source of true random bits. It's been
> there for a few years. To generate random bits is simply reading from
> this char device. I often do that in shell scripts with 'dd' piped to
> 'od'. How hard is that?
> =
> --
> Lee Sau Dan =A7=F5=A6u=B4=B0(Big5) =
~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
> .----------------------------------------------------------------------=
======.
> | e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~=
sdlee |
> `----------------------------------------------------------------------=
======'
/dev/random, although pretty good, isn't true random. No software based
systems are.
A quantum source, such as radioactive decay, is required.
-- =
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: 11 May 2001 13:28:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2001 01:50:47 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 09 May 2001 15:55:17 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 09 May 2001 11:34:47 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:14:59 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >Edward Rosten wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Being warm blooded is not the thing that makes a mammal, having
>> >> >> >> >> > mammae is what makes the mammal. Birds do not nurse their young,
>> >> >> >> >> > mammals do
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Yes they do. Hatchlings are fed by their parent(s).
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Not with breast milk.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So? the other guy said "birds do not nurse their young". This is false.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >MAMMALS NURSE THEIR YOUNG WITH BREAST MILK
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes that is true. However, that doesn't make "Birds do not nurse their young"
>> >> >> true.
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you really an idiot, or do you just play one on USENET.
>> >>
>> >> You are confusing me with you.
>> >>
>> >> >THE ***DEFINITION*** of a mammal is an animal which nurses its you WITH MILK
>> >> >FROM MAMMARY GLANDS.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and I said so myself in a previous response, in a clear fashion,
>> >> unlike you.
>> >>
>> >> >I.e. what seperates mammals from ALL other families is PRODUCTION OF MILK.
>> >>
>> >> Not the only thing, but one of the most obvious. Of course several
>> >> non-mammals feed their young from nutricious glandular secretions,
>> >> but they are not usually called milk.
>> >
>> >No, THE definition of a mammal, is an organism which is a member of
>> >the Kingdom animal, Phylum chordate, subphylum vertebrate, which
>> >feeds its young with milk from mammary glands.
>>
>> And I bet you even believe what you wrote contradicts what I wrote.
>> In fact, the usual definition of mammal is "an organism that is a
>> member of class Mammalia" which is pretty much an ad-hoc definition.
>>
>> Among the distinctive features of mammals, you may find live birth,
>> body hair, and mammary glands on the female for feeding the young.
>
>Live birth is not required (see Duck-billed Platypus)
Yes.
>Body hair is not required (see whales and dolphins)
Yes.
>the only thing that IS required is to be a vertebrate animal that
>has mammary glands for feeding babies.
A mammal is a mammal once it's classified as a mammal.
What I gave above were sufficient features to be called a mammal.
Not necessary ones.
>> Of course only mammals can have mammary glands because any similar
>> gland found on something that is not a mammal would have a
>> different name ;-)
>>
>> >> Then again there are substances called milk that are not produced by
>> >> mammals.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> I must add that *some* birds don't nurse their young, but they are rare (
>> >> >> the only example I can think of is the cuckoo).
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks for proving what a fool you are.
>> >>
>> >> Why, have you ever seen a female cuckoo nursing their young?
>> >
>> >Evidently, you're an uneducated idiot who fraudulently
>> >obtained a master's degree.
>>
>> Apparently you are an idiot who is confusing me with someone else
>> again. Where have I claimed to have a master's degree?
>>
>> >Alternatively, your degrees don't mean anything.
>>
>> Does your lack of degrees mean more?.
>
>I have an education. Or are you claiming that one's learning stays
>in a locked vault until magically opened by an animal skin?
Well, a degree is a piece of paper, signed by those who were
supposed to educate you, saying they finished educating you.
Just because you flunked, don't try to make your incomplete
education look worse than it already has.
And anyway, if someone that thinks ping execs nslookup tells
me "I have an education", at least I know it's not an
education on anything computer related.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: 11 May 2001 13:30:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9 May 2001 16:56:02 -0500, Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 9 May 2001 20:05:12 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 09 May 2001 15:56:06 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Aaron simply claimed that birds do not nurse their young. This is
>>>> >> false. He probably meany to say they don't suckle their young.
>>>> >
>>>> > You are an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> You claimed tat birds do not nurse their young. Yopu are wrong, and you
>>>
>>>So, birds have nipples now, eh?
>>
>>Aaron, you are aware that there are mammals without nipples, right?
>>The echidna, for instance.
>>
>>Having nipples is *not* a requirement to be a mammal.
>
>I think it would be more fun if we could now argue about the color
>of shit as previously suggested. Roberto says there is white colored
>shit. I say he's full of it......discuss.
At any given moment, any average-sized person has about 3 pounds of
shit (or awfully similar stuff) inside him.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: 11 May 2001 13:33:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2001 15:21:27 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:15:59 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Sheesh! You idiots would argue about the color sh*t!
>>
>>Shit can be many different colours, including white. And what are you,
>>8, that you can't write without censoring yourself?
>
>What are you, 7, that you can't argue about the color of sh*t without
>resorting to nit-picking my "censorship?"
The colour of shit was a heavily used medical diagnostic mechanism
until the XIX century, and is still used in veterinary medicine.
And yes, you are censoring yourself.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 11 May 2001 13:36:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2001 16:21:24 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 15:07:14
>>On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 May 2001 16:08:04
>>>>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:35 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 7 May 2001 13:51:52
>>>>>>On Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:46 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>I had thought that, according to you, no software can be "derivative" of
>>>>>>>any other software, but can only contain copies of other software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Guess what? If I take GAWK and change 10% of it, the new thing is
>>>>>>derivative from GAWK. If you really thought I said that, you are not
>>>>>>reading carefully.
>>>>>
>>>>>I was trying to make a point. Some times, you see, you say you can
>>>>>"take X" and "change it", but the result is still just "X", not
>>>>>something new and derivative of "X". Some times, you say that it is
>>>>>"not X", though derivative. How is anybody supposed to know, precisely,
>>>>>when software that gets modified is still the same software, though
>>>>>modified, and when it is supposed to be new software, but derivative?
>>>>
>>>>I don't have a clear answer to that. I'd say it depends on many many
>>>>factors. However, I don't think it makes any difference regarding
>>>>licensing of the software.
>>>
>>>And I would say it makes a tremendous and critical difference regarding
>>>licensing of the software. As would anyone who is licensing the
>>>software, unless they're rather naive and have lots of money to waste.
>>
>>I say it makes no difference because whether the modified work is still the
>>same program or is a derived work of the program, they still need a
>>license.
>
>That depends on the amount of category error you're willing to stand in
>the phrase "need a license".
And what "is" is, I suppose.
>>What difference do you say it makes?
>
>Which license it is that they need, which one they bought, and which one
>they think they have. As I indicated; a rather severe degree of
>difference. At least to the consumer.
"A license". You need "a license". Any license the copyright holder is
willing to give you.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 11 May 2001 13:41:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2001 16:21:28 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 15:09:19
>>On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 May 2001 16:24:17
>>>>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:03 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 7 May 2001 13:45:16
>>>>>>On Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:32:49
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>And what is then is "the API itself", but a description of the API?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That´s like saying a paperback of "The Great Gatsby" is a description
>>>>>>>>of "The Great Gatsby". It makes no sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't see why. It seems to me that a copy of "The Great Gatsby" would
>>>>>>>be a rather ideal and precise description of "The Great Gatsby". Now
>>>>>>>ask yourself "is it a description of the intellectual property?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, it may seem to you, but it does not seem to me, and it probably
>>>>>>does not seem to copyright law.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you believe your position is correct, why screw it up by claiming to
>>>>>speak for "copyright law"?
>>>>
>>>>I didn't claim to speak for copyright law. Read better.
>>>
>>>Of course you did. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but I can't understand
>>>any other meaning for your claiming to know how something might "seem to
>>>copyright law".
>>
>>Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "probably" as in "probably
>>does not seem to copyright law". In this case it implies the statement
>>is simply an informed guess.
>
>Perhaps you don't recognize that speaking for copyright law, whether you
>are claiming what 'it' 'probably' 'believes' or not, is just arrogance
>and stupidity.
I didn't use the word "believe", why are you using it in quotes?
And it is an informed guess. You are guessing about law here all the time.
Is that also arrogance and stupidity?
>>> [...remainder snipped, only because I am pressed for time...]
>>
>>Whatever.
>
>Likewise.
>
>>>BTW, Roberto, that is what Popper said, and it is true, and it doesn't
>>>matter what context you use, as long as it is consistent.
>>
>>How was it, oh yeah "if it's true and it can't be wrong it's useless",
>>said T. Max.
>
>No, "if it cannot be proven wrong, it cannot be considered true, and is
>therefore useless," allowing for context.
Misquoting yourself surely is something hard, yet you achieve it.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 11 May 2001 13:42:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2001 16:21:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 15:10:26
>>On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:50 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>>>
>>>*ZZZZZZZ*
>>>
>>>>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?
>>
>>Of course they don't pay royalties and they have never been challenged in
>>court. That is because they don't infringe on the copyright of the
>>books they cover, and any lawyer knows it.
>
>Now that's the Roberto I remember from way back when; pigheaded and not
>very bright.
>
>Nobody cares what lawyer's think; it's up to the judges to determine
>what infringes. Lawyers don't presume what judges say; that's why they
>come in pairs. One for one side, one for the other, minimum.
Every judge I know is a lawyer. Consider that.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 11 May 2001 13:43:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>> Now that's the Roberto I remember from way back when; pigheaded and not
>> very bright.
>>
>
>You know who Roberto is and what he has written, don´t you?
>
>I guess you should start backpedaling from here on
Blah, I have written a lot of COLA posts lately, for the most
part ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 11 May 2001 13:48:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2001 16:21:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 15:12:05
>>On Wed, 09 May 2001 15:00:16 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 May 2001 16:11:11
>>>>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:39 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>Protcting "expression of ideas" is protecting the right to express
>>>>the ideas.
>>>
>>>No, "free speech" is protecting the right to express ideas.
>>
>>Yes. Your "No," however, is meaningless, since what you say after the
>>"No," doesn't contradict what you are replying to.
>
>Yes, it does, Roberto. You may be unwilling to go beyond the realms of
>strict logic (a delusion you've trained yourself for, and take pride in,
>I know),
Actually, I go beyond strict logic often, yet when I do, I know I do.
> but I use reason, which allows for the obvious inductive
>inference. It is a correct inductive inference; that 'free speech' is
>exclusive of 'expression of ideas',
I: A is blue.
TMD: No, B is blue.
That is stupid. You are simply saying something unrelated and assuming
that because both things share a feature, they are somehow polar
opposites.
> in the statements just made. If you
>missed that fact, then it means you did not understand it.
Indeed I did not understand it. That could be because I am not fluent in
english, because I didn't pay much attention, or because the statement
is composed of baloney. Take your pick, I took mine already, and it
is a cold meat.
>>>>Protecting "expressions of ideas" is protecting a
>>>>specific expression of a specific idea.
>>
>>[stuff snipped for being too boring]
>
>Face it, Roberto; it's ALL boring.
Yes, all you write is quite boring. Your writing lacks flair, your
vocabulary is strained, and your posts obtuse.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 11 May 2001 13:48:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2001 16:21:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 15:13:40
>>On Wed, 09 May 2001 15:01:05 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 May 2001 16:13:43
>>>>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> I'm trying to point out
>>>>>the metaphysical nature of this thing that everyone wants to treat as if
>>>>>it were a concrete thing.
>>>>
>>>>It is a concrete thing, that's why your attempts to show it as
>>>>being of metaphysical nature are so laughable.
>>>
>>>Oh, yea, real concrete. Kind of like "vapid". A very concrete thing,
>>>'vapid'.
>>
>>Perhaps your medication is wearing off. "Vapid" is not a noun.
>
>Not very concrete, is it? ;-)
Just not grammatical.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cold feet or Reality Check?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:47:22 +1200
> None of their recent decisions have made a bit of sense. They must have
> contracted their marketing department from a temp service or something.
> Touting a "feature" that most clearly don't want - Feeling the, one would
> think, obvious heat and withdrawing said "feature" for a select few but
> keeping it enabled for their
> customers who, in many cases, don't have the infrastructure to support
> it.......And intimating that all of this is just temporary.
>
> What kind of brain dead marketing scheme IS this?
Question is, what advantage do I have by renting my software vs. buying
it? I see no advantage. Thank god I have always used Wordperfect, and
don't have to face the same shit.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 04:48:55 +0200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> *me is reaching for a very large reality stick to beat the living crap
> out of Jan with*
>
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20001225-00092.html
>
> A IBM IBM eServer pSeries 680 running AIX, and using Zeus 3.3.7 as the
> server software. It reached a remarkable score of 8344, using 12 Power3
> CPU's. That doesn't include the benefits of the low power requirements
> of the PowerPC processor.
I don't understand this remark.
It has 4 extra CPU, *twice* the memory, and it reached just barely above
Linux & Win2K on far inferior hardware.
What is there to be proud at?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 11 May 2001 13:49:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:00 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 19:51:31
>>On Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:12 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 05:23:57
>>>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 21:06:14
>>>>
>>>>> >The rules of copyright have always involved copying something, not
>>>>> >necessarily literally, but something recognizable as a translation or
>>>>> >derivative.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence the name, "copyright", I would imagine.
>>>>>
>>>>> >If nothing but the API is involved on either side (as a
>>>>> >correct program should be written), then no copying is involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find something recognizably being copied here, whether you do or not.
>>>>
>>>>Name it. [...]
>>>
>>>The exclusive right to profit from an author's work.
>>
>>How do you copy such a thing? Is this some sort of dada post?
>
>You copy it by profiting on their work without the author's permission.
That doesn't make a copy of a right. It usurps that right (right
that seems to exist only in your mind anyway).
It's like saying trespassers copy houses.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 04:55:08 +0200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Can't speak of uptime, because it's usually to expensive (and long) to
> > benchmark those.
> > But according to TCP.ORG, in the unclustered category, Win2K win on
> > price/performance.
> > On unclustered/clustered category, Win2K wins *both* price/performance &
> > performance.
>
> Support is more expensive on UNIX boxes, however, that is off set my the
> reduced amount of downtime, hence the reason why the New Zealand
> financial system runs on big irons.
Interesting, I keep hearing about TCO for Unix being lower than TCO for
Windows.
I can't comment about downtime, I know that any Win2K box that I've seen was
up, and *stayed* up, as long as its owner wanted it to.
The only exceptions were driver problems.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
