Linux-Advocacy Digest #487, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Dave Martel)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("David Brown")
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("David Brown")
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: LOMAC shocks Microsoft! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 16 May 2001 NYLUG: Kirrily 'Skud' Robert on the e-smith Server
& Gateway ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know ("Flacco")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Quantum Leaper")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:59:37 -0600
On Sun, 13 May 2001 19:56:12 +0100, pip
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donn Miller wrote:
>> What a piece of junk! The Linux version doesn't do full screen, which
>> sucks obviously. But you can still do a double-size followed by a
>> control+alt+num-pad-plus to switch to a lower resolution manually.
>>
>> Even worse are the web sites that require the RP plugin! Here, you'd be
>> surprised, it barfs under Windows, but the plugin actually works under
>> the Linux version of Communicator. This is amazing, considering the
>> Linux version of Netscape sucks worse than anything I've seen. Well, at
>> least Java sucks royally under the Linux version of Netscape. Java
>> applets seem to go into an infinite loop under Linux Netscape 4.77.
>
>
>Doh! I've used Realplayer under Linux and Windows all the time. It is a
>fine bit of software that works fine.
Real's got a bad habit of privacy violations. Steve Gibson caught
their RealDownload sending not only his download selections, but his
name and email address to Real's server: "So now my private
information — which was obtained by RealNetworks during a SECURE
PURCHASE TRANSACTION with an explicit commitment for security,
privacy, and secrecy — is being sent back to Real — months later — "in
the clear" with no security, every time I download arbitrary files
from the Internet using their utility — along with the full name of
the file I downloaded and the unique ID that could be used to identify
my computer." <http://grc.com/downloaders.htm>
Real claimed that this was an unintentional programming error - but
this is the second (or possibly the third) time one of their products
has "unintentionally" violated users' privacy.
It'll be a cold day in hell before I'll allow any RealNetworks product
anywhere near my systems.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[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: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:08:02 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dmrfj$97o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dmihu$5i6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dmgt0$n0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >
>> >No, because that isn't what I asked.
>> >I asked you if you think it's morally, or legally correct to force MS to
>> not
>> >integrate stuff that the consumer *expects* to find in an OS.
>> >
>> >How about forcing GM to not sell cars with wheels? Or with motors?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Its more like forcing GM to not sell matching luggage sets and road
>atlases
>> with their cars. Wheels and motor are essential parts of the car - no
one
>> complains about an OS that comes with file systems, or network support.
>
>Rick does. He thinks that MS should be broken up because of this.
>I wonder if he thinks that MS should be broken up for adding FS support
too.
>
>> But
>> people *would* complain if their were forced to buy a new set of
suitcases
>> and road maps with their new car (especially if the car broke down when
>you
>> tried to take them out!), even though they are essential for some uses of
>> the car (e.g., going on holiday).
>
>> A good browser is needed for only one of
>> a myriad of uses for a computer - namely, web browsing.
>
>What are the most common tasks of a computer today?
>To browse the web, isn't it?
>
>Ten years ago, there was no reason for consumer OS to come with networking.
>Today?
>
>Three years ago, DVD & CDR where scarce, including them in the OS would
>benefit only a small part of the OS buyers.
>Today, DVD & CDR are quite common, I don't see a reason why I would've to
>buy a DVD Encoder or a CDR burning program just because "it always was so".
>
>For that matter, what about audio CD? Why should MS be allowed to bundle cd
>player, but not a DVD player? DVD are starting to become as common as CDs
>are.
>
>It looks to me as if you (and certainly Rick) are supporting for stagnating
>MS.
>Forcing it to a complete feature freeze.
>I don't see how this benefit the client.
>
I am not sure you understand what an OS is, nor what MS is being asked to do
(at least by more moderate people). An OS provides an execution environment
for other programs, and provides these programs with access to the
functionality of the computer. Thus, device drivers for a CDROM or DVD
drive form part of the OS. The OS provides an interface allowing
application programs to read from the CD drive regardless of details of the
drive, and it provides an interface allowing an application to play music
through a sound card, regardless of the type of sound card. But a program
which reads tracks from a CD and plays them is an application - it is not
part of the OS. Similarly, low-level network protocols such as TCP/IP can
be regarded as part of the OS (although that is debatable - drivers for
network cards certainly is part of the OS). Higher level protocols such as
HTTP or FTP are arguably part of the applications layer, as is a GUI.
Browsers and DVD players are without any doubt applications - they are not
part of the OS in any way.
I don't think MS should be stopped from providing a browser with Windows - a
Windows distribution is more than just an OS, in exactly the same way as a
Linux distribution. But IE is an application - the user should be free to
install it or not as they see fit. And distributers (i.e., OEMs) should be
free to include it or not, along with other applications such as alternative
browsers. There is no reason for MS not to distribute IE, but it should be
on the same lines as a Linux distribution with KDE providing Konquerer - the
distributer can choose to include it or not, and can provide any number of
other choices. The user can choose to install Konquerer or any other
browser, and can choose between them. They can also remove Konquerer at a
later stage if they want.
The client benifits from choice. Distributers benifit from choice - it is
hard for OEMs to distinguish their systems from the next. Part of that used
to be in the software they included in the package - now it is almost
impossible for them to provide anything but MS software.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:35:29 +0100
> > They have paid no Federal Taxes for the last six years.
>
> If they don't pay federal taxes then I'm sure that they are not lawfully
> obligated to pay. Are you suggesting that they just make up a dollar
> amount off the top of their head, and send it in just for the fun of it?
> Or are you a simply a little bit jealous?
>
A lot of the tax savings made by MS are made by giving software to charity
whether they want it or not and then claiming the full value of the
software off their tax bill - this may not be illegal but is certainly
immoral, giving away copies of windows which cost almost nothing to produce
( what is the per-copy media cost for the windows CD) and then claiming
back the full retail value. In what other industry could you donate
something costing $0.5 or less to produce then claim back at least $100 off
your tax bill. If they did this any other way they would have been
investigated for fraud long before the DOJ trial.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:21:00 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lee Hollaar wrote:
>> That said, the practicality is that the copyright owner somehow needs
>> to find out about the creation of the derivative work to file suit. But
>> that could be through other than its distribution, such as you bragging
>> about it to somebody who tells the copyright owner. And even if there
>> is no actual damages to the copyright owner, statutory damages could
>> still be available.
>
> I would say that the most relevant real world situation where this would
> arise would be a business using a modified (without authorization)
> version of a program in their business. In that case, there might be
> employees who know about it and could tell the copyright owner.
I thought that adapting a legally obtained program to one's
needs was specifically allowed by the law.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:21:08 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dmrfg$97o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dmn2r$7dn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I know this type of benchmarking would be more complex - that is
>> partly why it would be more useful. Its like comparing cars based on the
>> fuel economy driving for several hours through town traffic, rather than
>> just measuring the top speed along a straight racetrack - it is much
>harder
>> to do, but far more useful in the end.
>>
>> If discussion boards are that easy (I haven't written one myself, so I'll
>> take your word for it), then they would make an excellent example. One
of
>> these benchmark groups should specify the exact capabilities required,
>> including using a DB backend, and required features such as searching
>> messages, and exact screen layouts (maybe even specifying the HTML to be
>> dynamically generated), so that the systems would be functionally
>identical.
>> Different vendors could then implement the system with different tools,
>and
>> compare results.
>
>That is actually isn't very good thing to do, I think.
>Quite simply, *anyone* who knows more than the basics of PHP or ASP or
other
>languages, of course, can create a discussion board.
>That isn't a measure of what a system need, thought.
>
>For a start, DB table design can offset the whole thing, not to mention
>using a suited DB (I wouldn't use an Oracle for a discussion board, unless
>it's something the size of Usenet & I needed to keep searchable records
>indefinetly)
>
>And how do you benchmark a discussion board, for that matter? By how much
>pages it can serve per second? This is easily offsetted by using static
>pages & Tux or SWC to serve them, hell, even untuned Apache & IIS can
>saturate > T1 line on commodity hardware.
>
>By how many posts it can accept per seconds? It's harder to cheat here, but
>still not applicable. Putting DB code in COM compotents comes to mind as
one
>way to do it.
>
>Basically, a discussion board is only a few level upward from a hello world
>program, to any scripting language that I know.
>
>And to test for spesific applications is the client's job when he decides
>what to buy.
>
>
These are all fair points. But as you say, discussion board is a few levels
above a "Hello, world!" program, whereas the current static web page tests
are on a par with "Hello, world!". So it would be a step in the right
direction at least. But I am perfectly open to whatever other example
systems you can suggest for benchmarking - a discussion board was only a
suggestion.
An alternative method of benchmarking, instead of increasing the
complexities, would be to enforce other barriers that would make the results
of more use. As you say, the best test is for clients to test systems for
themselves, but that is only economically feasible for large budget
installations. So the benchmarks should have enforced price limitations.
For example, the systems should have a price tag of less than $5000 (or
perhaps several price classes) for all hardware and software (including any
client access licences required). Support costs and other TCO calculations
should not be included, since these are highly dependant on the client and
their technical abilities - claims that Linux costs more because you have to
retrain your staff are irrelevant to companies with Linux-competant staff.
It would be reasonable, however, to include the cost of the commercial
version of installed Linux versions (i.e., include the price of Red Hat
Linux rather than downloading it for free). Other interesting limitations
would be on physical size and power requirements - these may seem minor
points, but they are not totally irrelevant.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:23:11 +0100
> Linux is missing a not too heavy office package (StarOffice is too heavy
> for systems with 64MB or less).
is there any decent office package that runs in under 64M?
As it happens, SO works just fine on a P133 w/72M. I imagine that most
business have rather better computers in general than mine.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 21:25:39 GMT
"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, 11 May 2001, Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
> >> Les Mikesell wrote:
> >>>> Do YOU know any way to write
> >>>> software that uses a library without using the library? (Aside from
the
> >>>> legally non-existent concept of an API, of course, an separate
argument
> >>>> I am even now pursuing. Feel free to pile on, but please don't beg
the
> >>>> question.)
> >>> Copyright covers distribution, not using.
> >> Copyright covers using. Using softawre involves making copies. Making
> >> those copies, unless done in the context of the statutory exception,
> >> require the permission of the copyright holder.
> >
> > In a strict sense, no, copyright doesn't cover use. I can *use* a book
> > any way I like, as long as I've legally obtained a copy of that book. I
> > can't copy and redistribute parts of that book, except in the context
> > of fair use or by permission of the copyright owner.
> >
> > It's something of a unique situation that use of software typically
> > requires an additional copy of the software at the time of execution.
>
> Interestingly, the people from Agenda Computing (who produce a cute
> Linux-based PDA) have been working on something they call "Execute
> in place". Essentially, if you have a directly accessible mass storage
> device (Flash), you don't need to load the program into another tier
> of memory (RAM) to execute it. Same OS, same program, but one machine
> makes a statutory copy, and the other doesn't.
That's not exactly new technology - low end Cisco routers like the 2500
have executed directly from flash for years. The are moving away from
that model because even though it saves RAM (very expensive from Cisco...)
execution in flash is slower. I suppose it would be new if it worked
as generic PC memory.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Sun, 13 May 2001 21:10:58 GMT
On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Max, I think you are being deliberately obtuse here, but it's really not
relevant that you don't know anyone who's copied a program more than
a couple times. You probably are aware that people do place music in
mp3 format on their computers with the intention that others connect
to them over the internet for the purpose of making copies.
It has also been documented that some college students put software on
networked computers with the intention that their fellow students
make copies for free.
I think it's clear that in neither of those two situations are the
hosts of the copyrighted material commercial enterprises.
If you were to put copyrighted software on a network with the intention
that people would download that material for free then you would a party
(at the very least a contributory infringer) to whatever copying other
people did. Presumably that could easily be multiple copies.
It has already been pointed out that the law was specifically modified
to target people who run such a free network. Congress has already
said that they meant the law to criminalize that kind of non commercial
copying. What better evidence of the law's intent do you need?
I won't comment on the list vs. OEM price comment since L. Hollaar has
already done so. I apologize to Lee for my previous incorrect spellings
of his name.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:32:15 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Craig Kelley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > Please submit your votes for:
>>
>> What about standard trolls? I think kookis has to rate rather highly. i
>> remember when (a few months ago), Bloody Viking(?) X-posted to
>> comp.lang.c about a problem he was having with compiling C programs
>> under Linux. Kookis got involved in the thread and ended up getting
>> plonked by almost everyone on c.l.c.
>
> How about "Most Frequently Plonked Troll At Large Award"?
We also need a best kook category. I think Kookis wins that as well :-)
> I'd nominate Erik to "most likely works at Microsoft".
Who would get the `tried hardest but failed to work at microsoft'?
I nominate C. Myers.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LOMAC shocks Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 21:32:12 GMT
And I'll wager that 95 percent of the people in the world don't even
know or care what LOMAC is....
BTW what is it?
flatfish
On Sun, 13 May 2001 14:52:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>Microsoft officials are shocked that Linux has beaten them to the
>.net market by releasing LOMAC first!
>
>250,000 GPL developers working under Linux beat 37,500 total employee's
>at Microsoft!
>
>This is why Linux is kicking Microsoft's ass.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 16 May 2001 NYLUG: Kirrily 'Skud' Robert on the e-smith
Server & Gateway
Date: 13 May 2001 17:32:13 -0400
<blockquote
edit-level="light">
*** New York Linux Users Group May 2001 Meeting ***
- NYLUG.org -
e-smith Server and Gateway Distribution
Presented by Kirrily Skud Robert
5/16/2001
Wednesday
6:30pm-8:00pm
IBM Headquarters Building
590 Madison Avenue at 57th Street
Check in at lobby for badge and room number
====================================================================
The e-smith server and gateway distribution is an all-in-one network access
and collaboration solution aimed at small to medium enterprises, built
under Linux and released under the GPL. It combines a non-techie web
management interface with a geek-friendly modular/extensible architecture
under the hood.
Services include (but are not limited to): gateway, firewall, mail, web,
FTP, file, print, VPN and DHCP. Kirrily Skud Robert will take us on a tour
of e-smith, exposing all the bits they go to so much trouble to hide from
the technology-fearing general public.
Kirrily presented a paper about e-smith at linux.conf.au, and wrote a
feature article about Perl and e-smith for perl.com.
http://www.e-smith.org
http://www.e-smith.com/pdfs/e-smith_v4.1_datasheet.pdf
http://www.infotrope.net
http://infotrope.net/writing/content/e-smith-slides/t1.html
http://infotrope.net/writing/content/e-smith-paper/e-smith-paper.html
http://www.perl.com/pub/2001/02/esmith.html
Kirrily Skud Robert factlets from the 'net...
* Founder of the Melbourne (Australia) Perlmongers
* Editor at Freshmeat from January to July 2000
* Member and contributor, Open Source Writers Group
http://oswg.org/
She has also contributed to the sparse body of knowledge about female
geeks.
http://www.slashdot.org/features/98/11/24/0941201.shtml
Stammtisch:
And then after the meeting... Join us around 8:15pm or so at the Typhoon
Brewery & Restaurant located at 22 East 54th Street between Madison and
5th Aves.
http://www.typhoonbrewery.com/
Please see our home page at http://www.nylug.org for the HTMLized version
of this announcement, complete with graphics and additional hyperlinks to
related information.
May 2001 - The New York Linux Users Group, NYLUG.org
Thanks to Ron Guerin for preparing these announcements.
===============================================================
Jim Gleason VA Linux Systems
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.valinux.com
phone: 212-858-7684 President, New York Linux Users Group
fax: 212-858-7685 http://www.nylug.org
===============================================================
</blockquote>
Distributed poC TINC:
Jay Sulzberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Corresponding Secretary LXNY
LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
http://www.lxny.org
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 21:32:58 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> I don't see a difference here. FSF is not interested in forbidding
> >> >> users from writing programs for their own use.
> >> >
> >> >There is no evidence one way or another for that. As the GPL states,
> >> >its scope doesn't and can't cover that case. However, the FSF has
> >> >been interested in making it difficult for other free software to be
> >> >developed, as in the RIPEM case.
> >>
> >> All it does is ensure that what free software is made is actually free,
> >> and remains so.
> >
> >The only means it has to accomplish this is to destroy the ability to
> >produce other choices, even those that are less restricted. So
> >those choices are taken away from us.
>
> No, those choices don't exist. They are therefore not choices which are
> denied; they are simply not choices.
That's what I said. They don't exist because they aren't allowed to exist.
Code with BSD style licenses does allow those choices to exist and
we have all gained something from them and the interoperability that
development model encourages. Even if your choice has always been
not to buy any commercial derivative you have gained something from
those alternatives, their function in the development of the internet, and
the contributions back to the base code funded by the commercial branches.
Those things you call 'simply not choices' don't exist because of the
GPL.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 21:33:59 GMT
On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:18:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>In article <3afebc17$0$82825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
>>
>>------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0DBAB.BDE843E0--
>>
><SNIP>
>
>Linux is the fastest growing OS on the planet with MS being a distant
>second.
When you start a "0" there is only one way to go....
>Linux now has a majority rule amongst small business.
Facts please?
>And I've never seen comments from CEO magazine change this.
CEO's are generally more concerned with what club to use on a par 14
hole.....
flatfish
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:35:54 +0100
> I have to use caps cause lamers won't permit HTML in newsgroups so we
> could use italics, bold and proper quoting styles so we're forced to use
> something else.
You know, if you used *BOLD* or /italics/ or _underline_ as much as you
use CAPS, you'd still be an idiot.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:38:04 +0100
> Are you trying to suggest that there are no linux servers that ever
> crash within the first 100 or 200 days? I hate to tell you this, but
> there are.
So?
> Mean also means some crashed AFTER 120 days.
Ah, now you get the point I was making? It is meaningless to quote a non
average statistic for this kind of thing. Ans 120 days mean is rotten by
any standards.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 21:42:49 GMT
> Allow me to quote the management summary:
Now allow me to summarize your quote:
"Alright, you slack-jawed morons. Line up. Everyone here is going to use
MICROSOFT, see? Why? Because you're going to use .NET and HAILSTORM,
see? In the next two years, I don't want none of you jokers doin' a
transaction around here that's NOT a HAILSTORM transaction, got it?
Now open your wallets, pull down your pants, and get in line.
Schmucks.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Sun, 13 May 2001 21:44:28 GMT
"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
> >"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Fri, 11 May 2001 01:07:57 -0400, JS PL <hieverybody!> wrote:
> >> |
> >> |"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> |
> >> |> Suddenly we need to qualify what is "possible" and what is not? Way
to
> >> |> go metaphysical, dude. Go look up the word "unfalsifiable" in a
really
> >> |> big dictionary, OK?
> >> |
> >> |No such word (go figure) it looks like it's just another word you made
> >up.
> >> |But then it gave me a huge list of suggestions begining in "un". I
> >clicked
> >> |on "unbalanced" and there was a picture of you. tee hee..
> >>
> >>
> >> http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~earl/phil1400/falsificgroupsSp00.html
> >
> >Too bad that's not the word in question.
>
> You won't find it in a standard dictionary, I'm afraid. This will
> change soon, I'm quite sure, but its no surprise the word hasn't
> filtered out from the scientists and philosophers who have been using it
> since Popper sorted out these issues.
>
> Go ask any scientist what "unfalsifiable" means. If they're a
> scientist, they will no the answer. If not, you'll have to pick some
> other label for them; 'scientist' ('philosopher' too, of course) are
> taken already.
>
I haven't see that word used for a long time until it was a 'Word of the
Day' on a web site a couple weeks ago. I just wish I could remember which
one!
Interesting, I found the word in all three of my 'standard' paper
dictionary, the only one that didn't have the word was my pocket
dictionary.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
