Linux-Advocacy Digest #427, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Mike")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (BSD Bob the old greybeard
BSD freak)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("JS PL")
Re: OT: ASUS releases games cheat drivers (Dave Martel)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?=)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Chad Everett)
Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS ("Lloyd")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Igor Sobrado)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("David Brown")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Igor Sobrado)
Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS (.)
Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS (.)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("David Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:25:11 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
Wrong question, Matthew. Similar to asking what Win2k can do that Linux
can't, it misses the point that Office is the dominant product today. The
primary question you have to answer is why people use MS Office. Ignore the
humorous answers ("Because they like looking at blue screens!") and the
stupid ones ("Because they're stupid sheep who just do whatever Bill tells
them to") and all the conspiracy theories, and you'll be left with a list of
real reasons why people aren't flocking to the competition.
You might not like the answer, but at least you'll know.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: BSD Bob the old greybeard BSD freak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 11 May 2001 16:17:19 GMT
In comp.unix.advocacy Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 May 2001, Matt McLeod wrote:
>> I got in trouble for trying to use LaTeX here when I started a
>> few years ago. But with the changes coming up, it looks like
>> LaTeX and LyX will become our standard doc tools.
> I have a preference for *roff, but I don't do any mathematical
> stuff.
Actually, there is a need to become workingly proficient in both
the *roff and the TeX systems in any good UNIX environment. I don't
see either of those going away, anytime soon. The *roffs are quick
and dirty, and are the default ascii output engines, plus they do
a very respectible typesetting job, a few things given in change.
Sadly, few folks are taught to ``think like a troffer'', anymore.
TeX and company are the masters of the big typesetting department.
But, it requires a bit of a learning curve to learn the nuances.
As much as the point and click crowd would like to have a ``word''
sort of thingie on UNIX, I don't see that as viable in the short
term, and not of high quality in the long term, unless things change
greatly. Whether staroffice will fill that bill remains to be seen.
The ancient arts of the *roffs and the TeXs have a lot of mileage
left in them. They are a different mindset, though.
Bob
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 07:29:23 +0200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Personally, I didn't really see how the argument relating to intergrated
> browser as anti-competitive. Question, what about KDE? GNOME? Netscape
> is a shit browser, thats why it lost to IE, and still, after 2 years, it
> still sucks like a vacuum. As for the comment regarding the OS, yes,
> there are some irregularities, however, besides that, Netscape had no
> one to blame except themselves, for producing such shoddy products.
IIRC, the concent degree allowed MS to integrate its products.
Netscape killed itself by being *bad* browser, and never fixing it.
Had Netscape remain a competative alternative, it would've won.
It didn't need to be better than IE, it didn't even need to be as good. It
just needed to be good enough.
People don't like to learn new stuff, and most of them had Netscape for a
long time. It was just that NS4 was very bad, and IE4 was very good,
extremely good, in comparison to NS.
So NS gave the incentive to users to move to IE.
Because IE had enough attraction to overcome the disadvantages of moving.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 07:35:10 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:y2UK6.17545$t12.1345945@bgtnsc05-
> I am not aware of any so-called "API"s today that do
> not offer *any* low level primitives. They often offer
> much more than DOS did, but they do offer the
> primitive stuff DOS gave you as well.
Java?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 07:37:05 +0200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here are a couple of Win2K servers that stayed up for a long time.
> >
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=partnering3.microsoft.com
> > 244
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=download.windowsbeta.microsoft.com
> > 216
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=msdnisv.microsoft.com
> > 189
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=corporate.windowsupdate.microsoft.c
> > om
> > 189
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=esl.one.microsoft.com
> > 184
> They are all clusters. Now, get, one, lone server loaded with Win2k
> Server, and then see the uptime.
>
Netcraft can't handle clusters.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 07:37:38 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dh17v$cbe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dgmnh$oii$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >Strangely, CompaQ killed Win2K on Alpha, any idea why they did it?
> >
>
>
> Normally, when a software company wants to make some software to sell,
they
> pay for its development. With Win2k (and further development of NT
service
> packs) on Alpha, MS wanted CompaQ to pay for all the development, but only
> MS would actually sell W2k Alpha. Thus CompaQ would have to pay MS
*again*
> when pre-installing it. Since most Alpha customers were wanting other
OSes
> anyway (they chose Alphas for speed and reliability - why blow that on
NT?),
> CompaQ couldn't afford to keep sponsering MS development.
Why did they did it on NT4, then?
------------------------------
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 07:39:42 +0200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "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?
> take away the money saved from reduced power consumption and heat
> dissapation, then you will see that it is fairly priced.
You are going to put electricity bill into the equation? Strange, since I
didn't mention $$$.
I was asking why you can be proud of something that it much more powerful,
but perform only a little better than a much inferior box.
I would say that there are certainly some efficency problems here.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 07:42:22 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fESK6.16674$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> You say this but you give me no reason to believe
> it. I'm asking you to tell me how int 21h is *different*
> from those things you do consider APIs.
21h isn't documentation, that is how T. Max percieve API.
> > It is indeed what is on the other
> > side of the interface, not the side of the "Application" (a term that is
> > far broader than this limited context indicates), which determines if
> > the programmatic interface is merely a low-level routine or a low-level
> > API.
>
> Okay. I think this unconventional, but let's see where
> it goes.
>
> Apparently operations like opening, reading, and writing
> files are too low level; the interface leading to them is not
> an "API" because of this.
>
> Thus, while some parts of Win32 may be APIs,
> things like ReadFile() and WriteFile() can't be included
> in that category.
>
> Is that right?
T. Max typical answer: "No, they aren't API, they are monopoly crapware!"
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 12:50:57 -0400
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3afb3a63$0$78414$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 23:16:13
> >> >does your mother know you've left the basemet?
> >>
> >> Do you still beat your meat?
> >
> >Who doesn't.
> >
> >Do you still fuck your mother?
> >
> >
> >
>
> In one years time, Microsoft IIS will be 50% of what it is today.
When do you predict the downward trend will begin? It better hurry up and
start, don't you think. I doubt it will happen. But on a bright note for
Linux et al - Apache 2 has entered the building.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: ASUS releases games cheat drivers
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:41:22 -0600
On Fri, 11 May 2001 03:03:38 +0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dave Martel wrote:
>
>> In an open letter of complaint, the Online Gamers Association said
>> that releasing the drivers "would ruin the spirit of good
>> sportsmanship in online and competitive gaming [and] would be
>> disastrous for the online gaming community, and for the growing sport
>> of professional gaming."
>
>And curiosly, they neglected to mention that it's those "professional"
>game players who provide the underlying demand for cheats.
Funny 'bout that. But on the other hand a lot of games are rigged
nowadays with utterly obscure secrets that make them impossible to win
without buying an overpriced hint booklet. Things like having to click
or blast several totally unrelated things in a specific sequence to
disable an enemy.
I just happened across another cute one while catching this morning's
news:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/18886.html
Birds sing mobile phone tunes
By: Tim Richardson
Posted: 11/05/2001 at 11:22 GMT
"Birds in Denmark are warbling new hi-tech songs after learning and
picking up tunes from mobile phone ringtones, according to the Danish
Ornithological Association."
<snip>
"And he mentioned something about one of the birds caught trilling a
ringtone being christened 'Nokia'."
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 17:55:56 +0200
Chad Everett wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2001 11:13:45 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>> In the mid 80's there were no such thing as 80Gig hard drives.
>>>
>>
>>GreyCloud, I hate to contradict you, but there were.
>>I had one, and they were horribly expensive.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>
> If you "had one", the please tell us how much did they cost and
> who made them?
>
>
Sorry, did not read correctly.
I read 80Meg, where 80Gig is written.
At that time even the mainframes did not have 80gig drives.
Peter
--
There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 17:59:46 +0200
Mike wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> So, whats missing? Where is the huge gap between Wordperfect Suite and
>> MS Office Pro?
>
> Wrong question, Matthew. Similar to asking what Win2k can do that Linux
> can't, it misses the point that Office is the dominant product today.
> The primary question you have to answer is why people use MS Office.
> Ignore the humorous answers ("Because they like looking at blue
> screens!") and the stupid ones ("Because they're stupid sheep who just
> do whatever Bill tells them to") and all the conspiracy theories, and
> you'll be left with a list of real reasons why people aren't flocking to
> the competition.
>
> You might not like the answer, but at least you'll know.
>
Well, I do not use it myself, but the guy I´m working with does.
And he keeps telling me that for him the *only* reason is, that he
receives documents in Word-format and the people on the other end expect
from him to do likewise.
He himself despises MS for that shoddy product.
Peter
--
Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"
------------------------------
From: Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:51:22 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reasons why I use Linux (SuSE 7.1) are simple: money (or the lack of it),
documentation and help, stability, Alt+F2 to save my fingers' health and so
much more.
And, most important: the positive communication like in this and other
newsgroups. Think of a term like "Windoze Community" and laugh.
The first time I ever saw it running was 1995. (I am a typical targeted
customer for M$ products actually)
A friend of mine lived in a networked student home, we sat and surfed the
web.
I was amazed that it was only a ping and talk to invite another friend over
for tea (or so...).
A few weeks later the "it's on the web"-phase started: Whatever purpose I
thought of, my friend told me applications were available for linux. My own
Linux came 3 years ago, automatic setup and the support of friends were
extremely important.
Then I started to RTFM, and sure it helped.
I was scared by make at first, GUIed rpm helped lots at first.
Today I use Windoze to play games sometimes, there is a WYSIWYG HTML-editor
that I like and HDrecording software. That's less than 5% of the time. (Ah
yes, and at university, cause the UX machines there are very old.)
I experienced Windoze (9x mostly) as a relatively unstable and unpredictable
OS. I do not share [EMAIL PROTECTED] 's experience of "5 or 6 blue
screens in 8 years", as posted on a message in this group (5-9-2001 15.07.17
GMT). But why not? I cant deny being amused, but it could be true. At my
machines it's always crash and burn, 2 times a week is _minimum_.
With Windoze I learned what to avoid, with Linux I learn how to do things.
It's not always easy though. But the strategy of hiding the logic of complex
tasks behind a GUI that claims to be as simple as a teaspoon is so
dangerous. How much pain did it cost to convince my wife not to think of M$
Word as a typewriter! Windoze seems to want me to forget about the computer
behind the GUI, until nothing works. The autoconf claims are convenient, but
sometimes I feel like "helped" by hurried, stressed and strict parents that
define what I should know of. Communication is important there, be it the
language of the software products, documentation or support by any media.
Most Linux distributions seem to be a good example of that.
And it's getting better all the time, how beautiful to watch the whole thing
grow
--
=============================================
Burkhard Wölfel
v e r s u c h s a n s t a l t (at) g m x . de
pubkey for this adress @ pgp.net
=============================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 May 2001 11:36:08 -0500
On Fri, 11 May 2001 17:59:46 +0200, Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike wrote:
>> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> So, whats missing? Where is the huge gap between Wordperfect Suite and
>>> MS Office Pro?
>>
>> Wrong question, Matthew. Similar to asking what Win2k can do that Linux
>> can't, it misses the point that Office is the dominant product today.
>> The primary question you have to answer is why people use MS Office.
>> Ignore the humorous answers ("Because they like looking at blue
>> screens!") and the stupid ones ("Because they're stupid sheep who just
>> do whatever Bill tells them to") and all the conspiracy theories, and
>> you'll be left with a list of real reasons why people aren't flocking to
>> the competition.
>>
>> You might not like the answer, but at least you'll know.
>>
>
>Well, I do not use it myself, but the guy I´m working with does.
>And he keeps telling me that for him the *only* reason is, that he
>receives documents in Word-format and the people on the other end expect
>from him to do likewise.
>He himself despises MS for that shoddy product.
>
>Peter
>
Yep...that's the reason allright. The same applies to excel and powerpoint
too. It's why most of the world is still using Office 97 and very few have
even bothered switching to Office 2000 (unless it came with their computer).
It's also the reason future sales of Office XP will be much harder to
maintain.
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:20:09 -0400
<Snip a bit>
>
> According to MS, forking is bad. So why do they >criticize the GPL which
is
> mainly responsible for preventing forks? Their >hypocricy is staggering.
How? how exactly does the GPL prevent a fork? I can very easily fork any GPL
app. AS an Avid BSDer I here this all the time, O but BSD can fork, SO?
Linux can fork just as easy. Forking has nothing to do with the code being
free or not. It has to do with the application having a varient that takes a
different development path. regardless of the license.
>
> Bob T.
====== 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: Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 11 May 2001 17:20:32 GMT
In alt.solaris.x86 Matt McLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got in trouble for trying to use LaTeX here when I started a
> few years ago. But with the changes coming up, it looks like
> LaTeX and LyX will become our standard doc tools.
I know that the LaTeX learning curve is so hard at the beggining.
But I think that in a week or two you can obtain better docs that,
for example, a Word user.
I do not like LyX a lot because when I installed it, some years
ago, it was not so good as it should be and the output files
were not portable to other TeX environments. I am sure it is
better now. By the way, I read that Gnu is developing another
front-end for TeX at present. Perhaps you want to try it.
Igor.
--
Igor Sobrado, UK34436 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 19:21:20 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dh4lv$cmh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dh17v$cbe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dgmnh$oii$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >
>> >Strangely, CompaQ killed Win2K on Alpha, any idea why they did it?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Normally, when a software company wants to make some software to sell,
>they
>> pay for its development. With Win2k (and further development of NT
>service
>> packs) on Alpha, MS wanted CompaQ to pay for all the development, but
only
>> MS would actually sell W2k Alpha. Thus CompaQ would have to pay MS
>*again*
>> when pre-installing it. Since most Alpha customers were wanting other
>OSes
>> anyway (they chose Alphas for speed and reliability - why blow that on
>NT?),
>> CompaQ couldn't afford to keep sponsering MS development.
>
>Why did they did it on NT4, then?
>
MS paid for more (or even all?) of the development of NT3.5 and NT4.0
originally. You know, like any other software company making software they
are going to sell themselves. It was only after MS started pushing the
development costs over to CompaQ that things turned sour. CompaQ put up
with it for a while, but stopped in the end - they simply were making too
big a loss. Maybe NT for Alpha was doomed anyway through high development
costs and low sales, but MS did a great job of shifting both financial and
moral obligations over to CompaQ.
------------------------------
From: Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 11 May 2001 17:23:39 GMT
In alt.solaris.x86 Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a preference for *roff, but I don't do any mathematical
> stuff.
Hi, Rich.
I do not know *roff tools a lot, I only read something about these
powerful tools in the book "The Unix Programming Environment" wrote
by Brian Kernighan and Robert Pike but at that time I was working
with TeX for typesetting.
I will try nroff and troff today when I arrive to home!
Igor.
--
Igor Sobrado, UK34436 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS
Date: 11 May 2001 17:28:19 GMT
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dfk42$gkq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:9des3m$6pi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2717264,00.html
>> >>
>> >> > Ransom Love (his real name, ISYN) says he agrees with MS that the GPL
> is
>> > not
>> >> > appropriate for Commerical software, and is considering alternate
>> > licenses
>> >> > such as the BSDL.
>> >>
>> >> Yes. The GPL makes it too hard for lazy corporate fatcats to get even
>> > fatter.
>> >>
>> >> LETS GET RID OF IT!!!
>>
>> > I love it. As soon as Caldera starts to question the GPL, suddenly
> they're
>> > a lazy corporate fatcat.
>>
>> Actually, funkybreath, if youd been paying attention at all, you would
>> realize that I always thought that caldera was full of lazy corporate
>> fatcats, as is mandrake, redhat, and a handful of other distribution
> houses.
> Excuse me for asking, but are there actually any commercial Linux-based
> companies (distros or other business) that you approve of?
Progeny is nice.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS
Date: 11 May 2001 17:29:36 GMT
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
>>> Actually, funkybreath, if youd been paying attention at all, you would
>>> realize that I always thought that caldera was full of lazy corporate
>>> fatcats, as is mandrake, redhat, and a handful of other distribution
>> houses.
>>
>> Excuse me for asking, but are there actually any commercial Linux-based
>> companies (distros or other business) that you approve of?
>
> I think he uses the FreeBSD 4.2 version of Linux so its he's prefered
> distro :-)
> A good guess would be Slackware and Debian or some ot the small weird
> distros - it looks like the rebel wann-be-geeks prefer small unknown
> distros at the moment.
>
I hate the small unknown distros. I actually use mandrake 8.0 at home,
because I really like playing first person shooters. But yes, my main
workstation is indeed freebsd 4.2. Its just plain stable.
And yes, I like debian just fine.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 19:23:48 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dh4m1$cmh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> > "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?
>> take away the money saved from reduced power consumption and heat
>> dissapation, then you will see that it is fairly priced.
>
>You are going to put electricity bill into the equation? Strange, since I
>didn't mention $$$.
>
>I was asking why you can be proud of something that it much more powerful,
>but perform only a little better than a much inferior box.
>I would say that there are certainly some efficency problems here.
>
What do you mean by "more powerful" ? More memory is definitely "more
powerful", but how do these processors compare in clock speed and throughput
with those on the PC hardware? 12 CPUs is not more powerful than 8 if they
run at half the speed. (I don't know the speeds involved here - that's why
I'm asking, I am just guessing from the electricty requirements.)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
