Linux-Advocacy Digest #483, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:18 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 03:44:46
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Yes, I got it. Like is said; it may be "like an API", only it
>isn't.
>> >> >> Not everything you can metaphysically imagine works "just like" an
>API
>> >> >> is an API. In fact, none of them are, except APIs. Your logic
>would
>> >> >> simply call any technical specification 'an API'. That's bogus.
>Get
>> >> >> it?
>> >> >
>> >> >Hmmm.
>> >> >
>> >> >What, in your view, is an API then?
>> >>
>> >> Documentation on the function calls used by a library.
>> >
>> >Ouch!
>> >You don't have to appear *that* ignorant, Austin Ziegler & I talked about
>it
>> >just a couple of days ago.
>>
>> I'll have to disagree, I most certainly do "have to appear that
>> ignorant". Somebody claimed to be able to 'fling an API across the room
>> at me', and I can't thing of any other thing he could have meant. He
>> was a programmer, too, if I remember correctly. Another claimed he had
>> several APIs in his desk. What were they, if not documentation on the
>> function calls used by a library? Are you claiming these programmers
>> were WRONG?
>
>No we're claiming you misunderstood....
>
>He was refering to the books that documented the interface.
OH! Was he? Really?
>As previously
>mentioned, int 21h was just as heavily documented. (I'd venture to say even
>more so as the primary means of access were via assembly code)
Hmmm... What do you mean, the "primary means of access were via
assembly code"? I thought *applications* used an API, and applications
aren't usually written in assembly code, are they?
<I'm desperately hoping that you'll realize, as you failed to the last
time, that the question really *is* rhetorical, in the classic sense.
Hell, it's practically sarcasm.>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:22 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>> >"Today may be a good day for the Clinton Administration's Legislation by
>> >Litigation agenda, but it is a sad day for the American consumer.
>>
>> The litigation was enacted more than a hundred years ago.
>
>Litigation is a legal proceeding. You mean to say Clinton's Legislation by
>Litigation Agenda began a hundred years ago? I had no idea he was that
>old...tee hee.. I mean...my god!
Or, well, just maybe I meant "legislation". Stop being a putz.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:24 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 03:42:27
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Yes, I got it. Like is said; it may be "like an API", only it isn't.
>> >> Not everything you can metaphysically imagine works "just like" an API
>> >> is an API. In fact, none of them are, except APIs. Your logic would
>> >> simply call any technical specification 'an API'. That's bogus. Get
>> >> it?
>> >
>> >Hmmm.
>> >
>> >What, in your view, is an API then?
>>
>> Documentation on the function calls used by a library.
>
>You're confusing the actual interface with documentation?
No, you're confusing the documentation for the documents used for
documentation. Documentation is information; it is not simply data.
This is why APIs are metaphysical, abstractions, not like the term
"program" and "library".
>Anyway, even by
>that odd critera, it qualifies. It was massively documented. I must have a
>pallet load of documentation, both by Microsoft and 3rd patry dedicated to
>it.
You seem to have missed the key word. Odd, considering both "function"
and "library" would have made more sense to concentrate on than
"documentation".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:25 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 20:04:06
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 17:21:53
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>> >> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:xEtK6.83$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> >> > > Tell us then of *your* criteria a body of functions must meet to be
>> >> >> > > classified as such...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I asked him that before, couple of times, so far he refused to answer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I simply take him at his word that he's not a programmer when these little
>> >> >> asides occur. I enjoy the arguments, though.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh what the hell, what's *your* definitive opinion, as a programmer, as to
>> >> >> 21h calls?
>> >> >
>> >> >That I'm glad to get rid of them :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >Seriously, though, I think that it's a primitive API.
>> >>
>> >> Is there some taxonomy of APIs within the engineering community which I
>> >> am unaware of? If not, you're just begging the question, I think.
>> >>
>> >> Which is fine, as long as you say "I do not think it is really an API,
>> >> although it is a primitive form of API". At least then we know the
>> >> metaphysical ground you are standing on; where API's "in the wild" can
>> >> be captured and domesticated and categorized.
>> >>
>> >> Let me ask you something; did anyone ever call DOS interrupts "an API"
>> >> at the time DOS was prevalent? Or is this just hindsight that enables
>> >> you to ascertain the morphology of APIs?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> T. Max Devlin
>> >> *** The best way to convince another is
>> >> to state your case moderately and
>> >> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>> >
>> >I've looked all over my documentation sets from MS dating back to 1987.
>> >No such wording back then about APIs. I'm beginning to thing MS has
>> >been re-painting their old horse a new color is all. Somehow, the
>> >semantics are being changed.
>>
>> No, not at all. The term API simply didn't exist until "platforms"
>> (really, the roots of middleware) became more commonly the basis of an
>> application, as general purpose computers went from specialty use to
>> consumer use. It *would* have been entirely appropriate at the time to
>> call DOS an API, if the phrase meant anything to enough people. It
>> didn't, though; program developers were still writing to "bare metal",
>> on DOS, essentially, and "on the OS" everywhere else.
>>
>> This is the root of the FSF's position on library linking, in fact; it's
>> all well and good to talk about "writing to an API" when there's
>> actually a replaceable library on the other side of the interface. But
>> when the only thing on the other side is just the bare metal or bios or
>> ONE SPECIFIC AND PARTICULAR library, talking about APIs is really just
>> nonsense outside the question of which function call to use for what,
>> and that is certainly nothing that anyone outside the program author
>> really cares about at all. Whether it is described as "calls in/to the
>> API" or "calls to/functions of the library" is just semantic quibbling.
>>
>That is my consensus as well. But, the new generation of kids are now in
>charge and its what they like to call it. I won't quibble with them
>just as long as they do it right.
Thus, the problem, and the reason they are so defensive about it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:27 GMT
Said Roy Culley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 18:46:30
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> I've looked all over my documentation sets from MS dating back to 1987.
>> No such wording back then about APIs. I'm beginning to thing MS has
>> been re-painting their old horse a new color is all. Somehow, the
>> semantics are being changed.
>
>Semantics are all it is. I don't care what it is called. In 25 years of
>SW development there has always been an 'API'. After all what is an
>application? When I was developing real-time systems in assembler the
>interfaces to each part of the system were clearly defined and documented.
Yet, they were not called APIs, were they?
>Each sub-system could be regarded as an application in its own right.
Could be, should be. Is not, unless you confuse an API with the library
it documents. Or should I say "fail to see that an API is documentation
of a library".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:29 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 23:27:43 -0400;
>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.
You first. Then we'll worry about the Governor's.
> 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.
You act like your category error is not obvious. Did I say he knows
"jack shit about law compared to me", or did you? I believe I pointed
out that he doesn't know jack shit about *anti-trust* law, compared to
anyone who does know jack shit about *anti-trust* law.
So, JS PL, you will be pleased when I point out that I know jack shit
about anti-trust law, and so I have more than enough expertise to point
out that the Governor does not.
>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.
As I guessed, he doesn't necessarily understand anti-trust law at all.
A background in robbery and murder hardly stresses the economic and
business issues involved.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:30 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 01:18:34 GMT;
>On Thu, 10 May 2001 23:03:59 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Like what?
>
>Look at the case L. Hollar cited. It gives the context for the reason why
>the statute was modified. Lee also posted an excerpt from the legislative
>history that where Congress explicitly indicated that they had that case
>in mind when they modified the statute.
>
>I think noting the purpose that Congress says they had in mind, and
>reading the plain meaning of the statute ought to be enough to convince
>most people. In any case, it would be very persuasive to a federal
>district court judge.
>
>One thousand dollars seems like a lot of copying when you are discussing
>music. As you say that would be several dozens of cds. But $1000 is
>a trivially small number of copies of something like Microsoft Office,
>or AutoCad.
List, or OEM? It would take bucketloads to make $1000 at OEM prices; I
don't know anyone who's copied a software program more than two or three
times. Or AutoCad even once, in a professional environment where anyone
could *possibly* claim that if it wasn't copied, it would have been a
sale.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:32 GMT
Said Roy Culley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 18:17:18
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> And if the US judicial system fails then the EU is just waiting to jump
>>> in. As they have said they are waiting for the current appeal process
>>> in the US to be completed out of courtesy but if the appeal goes in
>>> Microsoft's favour then it will be full steam ahead.
>>
>> And poor Microsoft won't be able to bribe senators and politicians.
>
>It also won't drag on four years. The US system is a farce. By the time
>a decision is finally reached it is too late. Microsoft have exploited
>this for over a decade. Their comeuppance is long over due.
By equally correct logic, the EU system is a farce, because it would
allow MS's monopolization to go on forever, simply making it more
expensive or difficult for them to maintain it, but by that token
failing to prevent it. The US system's intent is to remedy the
monopoly, not "punish" the company who holds it with fines that just get
passed on to the helpless victims in the next scam, once the current one
is forbidden. You underestimate the number of different scams MS can
come up with.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:33 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 19:38:12
[...]
>I laugh whenever I see a Penguinista giving themselves all this credit
>about how "Microsoft is scared to death of Linux". Microsoft may consider
>Linux a small competitor in the server market, but Linux-based companies
>have already begun to shoot themselves in the foot. They are going out
>of business left and right and the ones that are still in business are
>losing money hand over fist.
And everyone else laughs when you say anything, Chad, but this in
particular.
But we don't laugh when Microsoft makes their non-sensical (and only
barely veiled) claims that open source is "anti-American". People take
that kind of rhetoric seriously. MS is in serious trouble from all
sides, at this point; the customer base is no longer a bunch of ignorant
sheep, and yet still they find themselves locked into monopoly crapware,
the courts have MS on the ropes, and all the major vendors are starting
to support Linux.
So, yea, we laugh at you Chad, because there's nothing funny about
monopoly and the damage it does to an industry and society.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:38 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 19:31:46
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 12 May 2001 13:50:48 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > You know, I was using Solaris 2.7 and bash just yesterday and I resized
>> > the window and nothing seemed to be affected. I was using vi and it
>> > didn't detect the resize.
>>
>> Sure it did. It is just that vi doesn't have a lot of fancy borders or
>> anything that need to be reformatted when you change the size. But if
>> you run your cursor to the bottom of the window, it scrolls properly.
>> How could it do that unless it knows the window size?
>
>The width was screwed up though. When the width changed, there was just
>blank space on the right side of the window.
That is the text not reformatting, not either vi or the term failing to
recognize the change in window size. If you're going to say "vi does't
automatically reformat linewrap when the window size changes", everyone
else will just say "duh."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:39 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 May 2001 21:41:02
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dhevp$lps$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > And you actually defend your devotion to the command line ?? in
>> >> > public?
>> >>
>> >> I hereby declare, that I, Edward Rosten, like the command line and
>> >> think that in many ways it is superior to the GUI.
>> >
>> > I guess that just about says it for Edward...
>>
>> Says what? I have my head screwed on the right way round?
>>
>> Oh, I have a challenge for you:
>>
>> Using only the GUI, find all the plain text files on your computer.
>> (HINT: plain text files don't all end in .txt, they have arbitrary names).
>
>Gee - you're going to try to trick us with the fact that you'll be running a
>command that does this.
>
>But did you think for a second - there are programs that can do this in
>Windows too?
Could be, maybe. Name them, if there are any.
>Hmmm... isn't running a program from the GUI the same as running something
>from the CLI - sure, it is. It's a process off doing something for us and
>getting a result.
Wow. Really?
>besides, what a LAME thing to want to do...
'Nuf said.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:41 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 May 2001 21:27:02
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > More interesting is this result:
>> >
>http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q2/web99-20010412-00108.html
>> >
>> > 4 more proccessors.
>> > 12 more GB of RAM.
>> >
>> > Solaris + iPlanet
>> >
>> > And it only toped Win2K by about 9% and linux by roughly 16% !!!
>> >
>> > Not very impressive for Solaris & iPlanet, I would say.
>> >
>> > Especially since Solaris is geared toward this high end situations.
>> Thats what I call a big Iron. Not these poofter, namby pamby NT
>> clusters. UNIX, "built like a brick shit house" servers definately are
>> showing their true colours when compared to NT. Add on Veritas
>> Journalling file system for good measure, and you would have mission
>> critical server will all the redundancy under the SUN (no pun intended).
>>
>> Interesting that Work and Income New Zealand went for a UNISYS
>> mainframe, I wonder why Jan they didn't go for a woofter NT server?
>
>Given that Unisys builds the biggest W2K/NT servers around that question
>sounds hollow.
Hardly; they had the biggest W2K/NT servers around, but they didn't use
them, of course, when they needed a big reliable system.
>Gee, lets think for a minute shall we?
>
>Can you say: application compatibility?
No, it's "application barrier". Unisys, as well as everyone else (but
MS) would like to do away with it, but the best they can do is build big
W2K/NT systems for when they are forced to be compatible with monopoly
crapware.
>They WERE running Unix and when they upgraded they stayed with... wait for
>it... Unix - suprise? I'm not. Those who fail to learn from the past
>mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Here is proof of such ...
So the fact that Win9x is universally denigrated by Wintrolls (and
everyone else, way before they admitted it) is just more proof of how
wonderful W2K/NT is, right?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:43 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 May 2001 21:25:02
>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 11 May 2001 15:10:52 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Thats right... compare RH 6.2 to the latest MS O/S. What about the
>> >> latest RH 7.1 then?
>> >
>> >I thought that was one of the advantages of Linux, that you didn't have
>to
>> >upgrade to the latest to get the latest stuff?
>> >
>> >Or are you now saying that you HAVE to upgrade to the latest version of
>the
>> >distro in order to see improvements?
>>
>>
>> Linux is good, but it's not magic. If you don't upgrade your software,
>> how do you expect your software to improve?
>
>Well, of course! But linvocates constantly try to poke fun (?) at the fact
>that there are upgrades to windows over the course of years in order for it
>to improve. They seem to miss the fact that their own OS has undergone far
>more revisions than Windows...
Nice teleology; MS forces people to pay for the same crap all over again
over and over (well, admittedly, it isn't quite the same, which of
course is half the reason for the complaints) and this is "in order for
it to improve"?
Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:45 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 May 2001 21:14:03
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>> >"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.
>>
>> *Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
>>
>> We have a winner.
>
>Had you ever used a computer before you'd realize how stupid that sounds.
If you've ever used a non-Windows computer, you'd realize how stupid the
whole thing sounds. "The only exceptions were..." is not a coherent
follow-up to "it stayed up as long as the owner wanted it to."
>Cause once you get the right driver in place, guess what... it works and
>stays working. So, by installing a certified driver FIRST you never have a
>driver problem.
Oh, if ONLY that were true!
>Are you trying to suggest that other OSes are _immune_ to driver problems?
>Never seen a unix box hosed due to horrible drivers? I have ...
Are you trying to suggest that Windows boxes work predictably, just
because they must by definition work deterministically, in theory? I
got news for you, buddy; everybody knows that they don't. Your
assumption that Ayende's claim includes "once you get the right driver"
at all is bogus; it would be true for any OS *but* Windows, maybe. But
trying to blame "bad drivers" for crashes in Windows is just shorthand
for "I don't know why it crashed because it is closed source proprietary
monopoly crapware, so there's no telling how it works or why it broke,
but when I replaced the driver the problem appeared to disappear."
Granted, sometimes, it is a badly programmed driver or a bug in the
driver that somehow caused the whole OS to fail; that can happen even in
Linux or any other OS, supposedly, but very rarely if you stick with
post-release drivers. But an OS that can't prevent crashes is an OS
that crashes, and blaming anything other than the OS is just
cluelessness, unless you can be far more specific. Bringing us back
again to the problem of proprietary closed source monopoly crapware,
where you can't. So as long as you don't exploit the flaw in Windows
with the driver, the 'problem' is 'solved' (appears to disappear).
So it's nothing but rank foolishness to assume that the fact that
Windows "never crashed, except for bad drivers" is at all coherent, let
alone convincing.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
