Linux-Advocacy Digest #448, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Macman)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Magus)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (mlw)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (mlw)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Chad Everett)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Chad Everett)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux" ("Brian Craft")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Bob
Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Macman <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 11:52:16 GMT
In article <9dia41$mnc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > > > > And even then, we are talking about general trend in *new*
> applications
> > > > > being developped.
> > > > > What Apple need to do is to discourage any further development on
> OS9,
> > > and
> > > > > porting everything to OSX.
> > > >
> > > > They are trying to do that very thing.
> > >
> > > Not enough, you will still have plenty of legacy applications that would
> > > need OS9.
> > > And you'll have them for *years* to come.
> > >
> >
> > And the people that need to run them can run then under OS 9 alone or
> > Classic.
>
> Let me translate it to PC terms.
> You want to run this Windows application? Reboot to Windows or use VMWare.
>
> *Not* a good idea.
> Do you get this?
>
> I never disputed the fact that you can run OS9 applications.
>
> I said that it's a bloody stupid way to do that. Not to mention that it's
> horribly inefficent.
>
[snip]
> >
> > But users CAN use their legacy apps. Thats what Classic is all about.
> > And vendors are going about either carbonixing or writing Cocoa
> > versions.
>
> Good, that is what they did on the DOS->Windows transfer, want to guess when
> people stopped using DOS application?
> Hint, the date is sometimes in the *future*.
>
> I'm not speaking about whatever the can/can't, I'm talking about the
> inefficencies in the way Mac OS X does it backward compatability.
Do you believe that if you say this enough times it will come true?
Classic apps under Mac OS X perform at very close to their speeds under
Mac OS 9. (granted, the UI is a bit slower, but that's true for Cocoa
apps, too, so it's not a Classic issue). So where is this vaunted
inefficiency you're talking about. By any reasonable standard, Classic
is a very efficient way to run legacy apps.
------------------------------
From: Magus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:46:53 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> >Wow - that was really intelligent and quit an awesome comeback.
>
> Concise, complete, and correct. What more could you ask for?
>
Another 'e'.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 12:08:50 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > It may seem that, but these filters are written by the end user or
> > > administrator.
> >
> > See what I mean about Windows being better for
> > the desktop? :D
>
> Hardly. I get more flexibility from this than letting windows munge
> things up.
If you think that desktop market is composed of masses
of people who can and will write *print filters*- or even
configure them- you are quite out of touch.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 12:21:45 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dis2j$bia$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > And WINE sucks. Badly. Run some windows apps with it.
>
> That's because the Windows API is buggy and poorly documented. IIRC
> Linux/PPC can run MacOS programs rather beter than Wine can run Windows
> programs.
> -Ed
It's because the Windows API is mind boggling large, and Microsoft
keeps adding to it, and WINE does not get to use any of Microsoft's
code to implement it.
It's actually very well documented as such things go.
It's bugginess is really beside the point.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:30:46 +0200
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <3afc9f6b$0$41672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip a lot of stuff>
>> 180 days? what a joke, I expect 900z like uptimes of 35 years, not this
>> poofter 180 days or so.
>
> DOh! Get a clue. W2K hasn't been in use long enough... sheesh...
>
>
>
Gee, and when it is pointed out that W2k isn't out long enough to back up
your claims of getting 5 9s reliability *regularly* in a statistically
reliable manner, you are the one saying that it *has* been in use long enough
for you to judge?
Face it Jan, you may know a lot about W2k, but you are a lousy,
inconsistent debater who got spanked on simple high school statistics,
and now you are contradicting yourself. Do you really think you have
*any* credibility left?
I say we just killfile him, all of us. He's just not worth listening to.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 08:39:34 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, because unix systems stay up longer. Remember the "awesome"
> MTTF
> > > > > > that Windows 2000 exhibits? LOL.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I do. And W2K stays up every bit as long as unix systems.I know
> you
> > > > > won't admit it or can't imagine it but that's your problem not ours.
> > > > Why does Microsoft rely so heavily on clustering technology? when you
> > > > can get a big iron like a SunFire w/ 16 x Sparc III CPUS, or an z900
> > > > mainframe that can stay up for years, requiring little or no
> > > > maintainance. I would be quite interested in a Windows 2000 Server
> vs.
> > > > SUN Sunfire midframe, without clustering technology, and see the
> uptimes
> > > > of them.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times.
> >
> > TPC is not a universal benchmark. People must be paying members to submit
> > results. Because of this only certain configurations ever get listed, and
> thus
> > is not usable as a fair and equal benchmark.
>
> Oh, you've to pay, how does this make it an unfair & unequal benchmark?
Because only those paying get to submit results. Thus you do not get a broad
and generalized set of statistics.
>
> > Second, the OS has little to do with TPC results. It is mostly database
> and
> > configuration.
>
> Really?
> What would you say if I run a TCP test on a one of Sun's big iron boxes,
> using Linux 2.0 & Oracle?
> Do you think that it would give the same result as Solaris? Even close?
> After all, "the OS has little to do with TPC results", according to you.
If you could, infact, set up such a system, where the ONLY difference between
the two installations was the OS, then yes, the difference would be the OS.
That is a far far different test than we are discussing, and you should know
that.
The TPC is a test to measure database performance. The TPC results are from
highly tuned systems where everything has been tweaked. The raw OS practically
nothing to do with it, especially when the SQL databases use raw table space
access, thus bypassing the file system management of the OS.
To get good TPC numbers, you need to lay out tables spaces and log volumes
well, reduce indexes to the fewest you need, choose you disk system(s) well,
choose mother board well to support I/O, choose I/O cards well SCSI vs Fibre,
"burstable" throughput, etc. It ain't easy and it has little to do with the OS.
The TPC is NOT an OS benchmark.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 08:41:05 -0400
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, because unix systems stay up longer. Remember the "awesome"
> MTTF
> > > > > > that Windows 2000 exhibits? LOL.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I do. And W2K stays up every bit as long as unix systems.I know
> you
> > > > > won't admit it or can't imagine it but that's your problem not ours.
> > > > Why does Microsoft rely so heavily on clustering technology? when you
> > > > can get a big iron like a SunFire w/ 16 x Sparc III CPUS, or an z900
> > > > mainframe that can stay up for years, requiring little or no
> > > > maintainance. I would be quite interested in a Windows 2000 Server
> vs.
> > > > SUN Sunfire midframe, without clustering technology, and see the
> uptimes
> > > > of them.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times.
> >
> > TPC is not a universal benchmark. People must be paying members to submit
> > results. Because of this only certain configurations ever get listed, and
> thus
> > is not usable as a fair and equal benchmark.
> >
> > Second, the OS has little to do with TPC results. It is mostly database
> and
> > configuration.
> >
> > TPC results have no place in an OS discussion.
>
> Interesting how often TPC results were mentioned BEFORE W2K took the lead...
Really? I have never seen anyone stupid enough to confuse a database benchmark
with an OS benchmark before the Winvocates started grabbing at the first thing
they thought was helpful to their cause.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 12:26:07 GMT
On Sat, 12 May 2001 05:24:08 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Doesn't that have to be a part of a case where access to the original
>by someone is still involved?
The copyright holder doesn't have to sue the direct infringer if he
choses not to. He can sue the contributory infringer alone. Still
there has to be at least a potential direct infringement involved
before there can be contributory infringement, so in the case of
RIPEM, if the end users are not an infringing, it would seem that
no case for contributory infringement could be made.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 08:54:32 -0400
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > [snipped]
> > > >
> > > > Actually, it really good to see that stuff. I'll tell you why. RedHat
> 6.2
> > > does
> > > > not have the 2.4 kernel, it has 2.2. Some major SMP performance
> > > improvements
> > > > were done in 2.4.
> > >
> > > Tux2 requires kernel 2.4 so ...
> >
> > I stand corrected, it was on 2.4.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So, if the best and newest that Microsoft can produce, Win2000
> Datacenter
> > > and
> > > > IIS 5, is only 16% faster than a pervious distro version, and the
> older
> > > 2.2
> > > > linux kernel without SMP improvements, that's cool. That means the 2.4
> > > kernel
> > > > will kick its' butt with no problems.
> > >
> > > 2.4 just had it's ass kicked, I'm amused.
> > Hardly, 6% is pretty much nothing. However.....
> >
> > If one looks at the specifics of the tests, there are some interesting
> numbers.
> > Linux had lower connection response time and a higher kps for data.
>
> Lower reponse time because it was serving less connections.
Less is incorrect there, it should be "fewer" connections. But, you argument is
wrong. The response time should not be dependent on the number of connections,
and the response time difference is greater than 6%.
Also, I don't quite understand why TUX was serving more data in the test, but a
higher data rate may indicate that the test sets we slightly different.
>
> >
> > 6% difference, at these performance levels, can be anything and is not
> even
> > relevant. Not to mention we have different disk subsystem configurations.
> That
> > 15K RPM disk? What did it do? Presumably it was the system disk. It could
> have
> > been the disk to which the logs get written, which would have an impact on
> > performance.
>
> I don't think 6% is much - but when tux beat IIS in the first round by 7% it
> was linvocate heaven so... this is just a little form of payback :)
I don't recall anyone making a big deal except to say that Linux is free, what
does Win2K datacenter cost these days, $3,999? That is an easy $4k right off
the top.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So, Pay for MS Win2000 Datacenter, or get a Linux 2.4 distro for free.
> > > Hmm,
> > > > which should I choose?
> > >
> > > the one that works best in your own given situation, of course.
> >
> > Let's think about that, $thousands for W2K, $0 for Linux. Um, Um, someone
> help
> > me, here.
>
> sure, I'll help you. The two systems cost almost the same. Why? The cost of
> the OS is almost nothing compared to the hardware. Saving a few bucks with
> Linux doesn't add up to a hill of beans in the final equation.
You are joking right? What does Win2K cost?
A server costs anywhere between $2500 and $25,000 or even higher. For the OS to
be nothing, it would have to cost less than $250. (10% of the low end)
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Then there is "uptime" lol. What's the MTTF for Win2000? I keep
> > > forgetting,
> > > > something like 180 days? So pay lots of money, get an operating system
> > > that is
> > > > at best unreliable, or get equivalent performance and high reliability
> > > with
> > > > Linux and/or FreeBSD for free.
> > >
> > > Given that SP1 was released only about 180 days ago I'd say 100% uptime
> is a
> > > pretty good figure. That's what I'm typically seeing, 100%. I boot up,
> then
> > > it stays up, until I need to turn it if, if I choose to.
> >
> > So you say, but I want to see proof. An OS isn't stable until proven
> unstable,
> > it is unstable until proven stable. Any other point of view is reckless.
>
> How can we prove it other than keep pointing to more w2k sites with greater
> than 180 day uptimes. I have server that has been running since feb 17th
> with only a single reboot for SP1. There's proof.
When was the reboot? When you can go 180 days without ANY reboot, then talk.
> What proof is there of
> linux uptimes, some fudged counter values (the source code can be recompiled
> to start at whatever you choose, it's the "honor" system) at some unknown
> site?
What can be said, set up a Linux box and test for yourself.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I love how when arguments against performance fail, it's that old
> turning to
> > > 'uptime' jazz is next.
> > "uptime" is VERY important. It is an indication of stability and
> > predictability. "uptime" is FAR FAR more important that marginal
> performance
> > gains. I would settle for something 10% - 20% slower if it were more
> reliable
> > than something faster and less reliable.
>
> sure, so would I.
>
> >
> > Which would you buy for daily use: A fast car that experiences frequent
> > failures, or a slower car that needs no maintenance?
>
> Obviously
>
> >
> > > Too bad the linvocates who don't even bother trying
> > > the stuff they dis haven't figured out what everyone else knows already.
> W2K
> > > is perfectly reliable.
> >
> > OK, prove it. Provide some independent information that backs that claim
> up.
>
> sigh... and what would you consider independent information to back it up?
> Do you have any such independent information for linux uptimes? Show me some
> and I'm prepared to disbelieve them...
We have a test, sponsored by Microsoft, that shows the MTTF on W2K to be quite
short, and that was with it being rebooted every day. Find me an independent
report with that much credibility, and I'll listen.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:23:55 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> Another problem Direct-X has is that is very difficult if not
> impossible to back a version without re-installing the entire OS.
> There are some hacks, but the quality varies.
Attempting to do so leads to heartache 99.99 percent of the time.
(I've done it twice and had to re-load within a week each time)
Damned sloppy way to do things, IMO...
>
>
> But of course T-Max knew all of this already.....NOT.....
>
> flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 12 May 2001 07:47:32 -0500
On Fri, 11 May 2001 20:52:34 +0200, Burkhard Wölfel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Chad Everett wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 09 May 2001 13:55:42 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Let's assume that you are correct..that most men are bisexual.
>> >>
>> >>Please explain then, why all of these supposedly bi-sexual men at the
>> >>typical bar or night club aren't hitting on each other after striking
>> >>out with the women?
>> >
>> >There's any number of reasons, OBVIOUSLY, ranging from the social
>> >stigma of revealing these desires, to fear of disease, to just not
>> >wanting it too much at all. Any NUMBER of reasons that are more
>> >plausible than your assertion that most people have 0 (zero) capacity
>> >for bisexual feelings.
>> >
>> >>You are making an assertion. Natural consequences of that assumption
>> >>contradict reality. Thererefore, your assertion is wrong.
>> >
>> >Your logic is false.
>> >
>> >>Get a grip, and stop being a moron.
>> >
>> >Use your head. Read John W. Steven's posts. They are much more
>> >logical than your hand waving, empty, and clearly false, theories.
>> >Why do you think homosexuality hasn't died out? How do those
>> >"homosexuals" keep breeding? This is not difficult to figure out!
>> >
>>
>> For exactly the same reason we still keep getting people with
>> bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, depression, etc. , etc.
>> One fine day we might actually have a humane cure for homosexuality.
>
>I could use the same rhetorical technique as you do by asking the Lord
>to forgive you your sinful errata, could I?
>
>Your opinion is whatever you want it to be, but I think it is impolite
>and inadequate to judge a peaceful lifestyle as a disease. Thats so
>easy, call it sin or disease and hope for forgiveness or cure. You're on
>the safe side of the discussion, are you?
>
>There's no need to be afraid of homosexuals in a free world.
>
>Why are you?
>
>Burkhard
>
Where in my statements did I say I was afraid of homosexuals. I am
not afraid of them anymore than I am afraid of people with bipolar
disorder or any other genetic malfunction.
We've had homosexuals right here in this newsgroup state that if they
could change the fact that they're homosexual, they would do it in a
heartbeat. If one fine day we could have a humane cure for homosexuality,
why would you want to deny them that? What are you YOU afraid of?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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 18:34:27 +0200
"JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> T. Max Devlin wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
> >>"There is no basis for concluding that the Justice Department's business
> >>model will benefit consumers. [...]"
> >>Gov. Gary Locke (D-WA)
> >
> >Glad to hear the Governor's rather naive opinion. Guess you don't have
> >to know jack-shit about anti-trust to become a Governor.
>
>
> Maybe you could scan and post your law degree for everyone Max. If he
> doesn't know jack shit about law compared to you, then I guess it's a
wonder
> your brain is able to muster the intelligence to send a "beat" command to
> your heart.
>
> Gary attended Yale University, where he received his bachelor's degree in
> political science in 1972. After earning a law degree from Boston
University
> in 1975, he worked for several years as a deputy prosecutor in King
County,
> prosecuting people for crimes such as robbery and murder.
Specialization is a common thing in many professions.
It doesn't mean that he knows much about anti-trust laws.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 12 May 2001 07:52:34 -0500
On Fri, 11 May 2001 18:31:58 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Lyttle
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Fri, 11 May 2001 14:04:33 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Greg Cox wrote:
>>> >
>>> > It wasn't my analogy but I believe it was more about how horrible that a
>>> > unique ID number could be used to invade your privacy by identifying and
>>> > registering your computer while your car already has many ID numbers on
>>> > certain parts registered in a database somewhere completely out of your
>>> > control.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Well, your car certainly won´t surf the net to be identified by
>>> all those who paid MS good money for this ident info.
>>> Your car´s numbers will only be needed should it be stolen or in an
>>> accident.
>>Haven't seen ODB-III have you? How do you think that "On Star" thing
>>works? Current plans are to have all vehicles broadcast, on demand, an
>>ID. If your car is detected, via satellite, to be speeding, it will be
>>remotely put into limp mode.
>
>Even better [*] -- shut off the engine entirely; car coasts to a stop,
>police are called and surround the now-useless vehicle.
>
Better yet... Don't buy a car with OnStar and don't use Microsoft
Windows.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:45:54 +0100
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> > I don't really care for wp, but is it not a good thing that by taking
> > the decisions they did they helped improve WINE? A native version would
> > be nice - but after all the win32 compatibility layer may one day take
> > some of the fundamental reasons for using win32 away.
>
> Wine is the equivilant of Carbon for MacOS X. Carbon apps are not as
> fast as Coca Apps, however, as a half way point, it is a good compromise
> between speed/versatility and applications for Linux. The next step is
> to then move these apps over to Linux. Hopefully with the impending
> release of Borland C++ for Linux, porting will be made that much easier.
> If it was incredibly easy to port the 4 office apps to Linux, Corel
> would have done it, however, it is more complicated than that. However,
> with that being said, had they not gone down the JavaOffice and
> Netwinder route, they would have more money now to produce a native
> version of Wordperfect. However, one idea would be to get 150 part time
> linux developers, some developers from Redhat, SuSE and other distros,
> get them to sign a NDA, and get them to port it, and in return they
> receive a free copy of the final product and a small amount from the
> profits generated from their (Wordperfects) sales, say 30% shared
> amoungst the 150 developers.
>
This would never happen - why should Redhat, SUSE or other distro's who
strongly believe in open-source software sign up to produce a closed source
office package when they could supply the same programmers to one of the
open-source office development teams (openoffice or koffice) and then be
able to include the final product in their distro's for free. The same
applies to graphics software - why help proprietry corel draw or corel
photopaint when you can help the GIMP project and have free rights to
distribute the product.
------------------------------
From: "Brian Craft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux"
Crossposted-To: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:40:08 GMT
In article <HEfK6.28541$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Robert Kent"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -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.
>
>
>
With all due respect to your idea..........my motivation is to get rid of
Microsoft completely. With the exception of games, currently, I have no
use for MS anyway.
Brian
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:43:43 GMT
On 11 May 2001 21:38:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > Maybe because I'm using the new telnet server that MS provided with
> > > > their new OS. Or does it not understand window resizing either?
> go ahead, amaze us with why you wanted to use a text interface?
Having trouble with reading comprehension again Jan? You still haven't
answered the question about window resizing either.
I know that MS puts "features" into their products that do not actually
work. What is surprising is to see you admitting it.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
