Linux-Advocacy Digest #655, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Weevil")
Re: Things that annoy me in Mandrake Linux ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission (Charlie Ebert)
A New Zealand Linux success story ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 review ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Where is this supposed 40% Server market share for Windows? ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The nature of competition ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Where is this supposed 40% Server market share for Windows? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[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, 20 May 2001 23:20:33 GMT
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:TbUN6.32128$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This is
> > not a debatable point, by the way, unless you are one of Microsoft's
> whores,
> > in which case you are regularly forced to make ridiculous statements.
>
> I am sorry to hear that you are not open to debate on this
> point; I have responded anyway, in case someone else
> is reading this.
Well, you certainly wrote new sentences and juxtaposed them next to some of
mine, so I suppose you can claim to have responded.
As for my not being open to debate on the fact that the 68000 was far
superior to Intel's offerings of the time...I am also not open to debate
that the sky is blue. I just don't find it interesting to debate that which
is not debatable.
It is the fact that the Motorola chips were superior to Intel's as well as
being easier (and more fun!) to develop for that destroys your argument in
this thread. As you know, programmers hated the segmented architecture of
Intel machines. As you also know, they loved the flat addressing of the
Motorola 680x0 line. Yet they developed for the one they hated to develop
for. This indisputable fact directly contradicts your arguments in this
thread. You know this, too.
That you know all this, yet continue to make the same false arguments, makes
you one of Bill's whores. He has lots of them. :)
--
Weevil
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things that annoy me in Mandrake Linux
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 08:27:06 +0900
In article <9e9bfl$8pm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> What is RE support? Just curious, since I maintain an editor.
>
> Regular Expressions - though it was a known term. I would love to have
> that in quanta, Kedit, kwrite. Or maybe just a way to use ex commands
> with one of the above.
> Isnt there a RE lib?
>
Not sure but i think the usual shorthand is regex or something like that.
Nedit supports them.
--
Osugi Sakae
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:39:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> Does Pete Goodwin, really think people who do the things, that
>> he is unable to do, and on a daily basis, believe these claims?
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> It's a statement made frequently by Linux advocates.
>
>It's a statement made _once_ by Linux advocates. Get your facts right
>Charlie.
>
>> Of course not. The WINTROLL'S mission is to muddy
>> the water.
>
>I'm not a WinTroll. I'm not here to muddy the water.
>
>> The whole reason this person has made the statement
>> is he can't believe Pete Goodwin continually posts
>> messages about his troubles installing Linux.
>
>I can't help it if others are in denial.
>
>> Yet Pete Goodwin has also said repeatedly that
>> Linux is a threat to his job as he writes
>> drivers for Windows. He feels threatened.
>
>I've never said that. I do not see Linux as a threat. I do not feel
>threatened by Linux. You may desperately want delude yourself into
>believing that, but you are dead wrong.
>
>> Well some do it because they are like Pete Goodwin.
>> They are fearfull of loosing their jobs working with
>> Windows so they spend 100% of their spare time
>> trashing Linux to help sway public opinion.
>
>ROFL! You are incredible Charlie! My job is pretty secure (as any job
>is nowadays) as people want the services I offer.
>
>> And as an intelligent business person, what are
>> you to say about all this activity? Why would
>> these people spend all their time glued to
>> COLA and MS newsgroups posting every 5 minutes
>> on average to every message put there?????
>
>Oh yeah, like I post every five minutes. I may post a batch of replies in
>a short period of time, but then hours or days may post before I start
>again. Keep on dreamin' baby!
>
>> You have to be a total jackass to put your companies
>> future in the hands of Microsoft.
>
>Like yours is Charlie?
>
>> And I'm still 100% in favor of firing any CEO who
>> continues to invest their firms future in Microsoft.
>
>Like yours does Charlie?
>
>> And despite my comments and the comments of the WINTROLLS,
>> Linux is still the #1 fastest growing Market sucess in
>> the world. It's double that of Microsofts in 2000!
>
>And yet Linux barely registers a blip on the biggest market for PC's. The
>desktop market.
>
>> For 4 years now, the #1 growth slot has been earned by
>> Linux.
>
>It is so slow to grab such a teeny-weeny slice of the market.
>
>--
>Pete
Thanks for comming clean Wintroll.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A New Zealand Linux success story
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:42:24 +1200
http://idg.net.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/C9D6A483EA4888F2CC256A49000CCA1D!opendocu
ment
Although very brief, I am sure most people will get the message.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death,
no body can hear your screams
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:45:58 +1200
> Thanks for comming clean Wintroll.
Whats even worse, when someone tries to help him (Pete), For exampe, I tried
to find out why anti-aliasing wasn't working on his (Pete's) PeeCee, he
totally ignores any follow up posts as it could actually fix the problem.
Funny enough, anti-aliasing worked straight out of the box for me, why not
for Pete? or does he (Pete) have a voodoo computer?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:08:34 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Now if it IS a RISC chip which is going to be Intel's new
> >> premier top of the line bread and butter chip, I'm going
> >> laugh out loud.
> >
> >The IA-64 is *BASED* on PA-RISC technology, it is *NOT* the same chip.
>
> It's the same instruction set...
Yeah, and most IBM mainframes today have the same instruction set as the
original IBM 360 as well, does that mean they're the same processor?
Itanium also has the x86 instruction set, does that mean that the Pentium
III is the same as the Itanium?
> >> What I was told was current HP-9000's have had the IA-64 in them
> >> and they are slow IA-64's which run under 500 mhz.
> >
> >You are wrong. Current HP-9000's have the PA-8700 PA-RISC in them, and
they
> >run anywhere from 800Mhz to 1Ghz.
> >
> >> The ones which are to hit the PC market will be B series
> >> and will be made to run faster clock cycles.
> >>
> >> We run the A series.
> >>
> >> Let's see. They have them running at 850 mhz now?
> >> Is that right...
> >
> >Gezuz Charlie. Read HP's own fucking press release.
> >
> >http://www.cpus.hp.com/technical_references/8700pr.shtml
> >
> >Or, read their Itanium FAQ:
> >
> >http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/introduction/faq.html
> >
> >"
> >Q: What is the ItaniumT processor family?
> >A: Formerly know as IA-64, the ItaniumT processor family (IPF) is the
> >processor platform that will underpin the future of our computing
systems.
> >The IPF is a breakthrough evolution in architecture, based on technology
> >co-invented by HP and Intel®"
> >
> >Note the use of the phrase "that WILL underpin the FUTURE of our
computing
> >systems".
> >
> >Q: I already own an HP system - does it already support the ItaniumT
> >processor family?
> >A: Today's HP 9000 N-Class and L-Class servers are IPF ready and have
> >several IPF components designed into the current systems, including
> >chipsets, power supplies and cooling subsystems.
> >
> >
> >
> >Note that current HP 9000's are Itanium *READY*, and have chipsets
> >compatible with Itanium, but are not shipping Itaniums.
>
> Okay, same instruction set and same pin set also.
>
> But it's not the same chip then.
>
> Well, okay....
I'm not sure if they have the same pinouts or not. Their chipsets might
reroute the pins depending on which processor is installed. But, even if it
is the same pinout, it doesn't mean much. It's the internal architecture of
the CPU that is the difference between EPIC and RISC, not its pinout.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 review
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:10:23 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e9in3$603$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:iVXN6.2465$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9e9ccl$291$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Geepers mate. I was comparing Windows 2000 SP1 to Windows 2000 SP2.
If
> it
> > > was, say, Windows 2000 SP2 vs. SuSE Linux 7.1, I would have gone with
> SuSE
> > > Linux 7.1. Erik proclaims Windows for EVERYTHING,
> >
> > No, I don't. In fact, I've stated on many occasions that I use FreeBSD
> for
> > my own personal server, and I use Linux for my firewall. My argument is
> > usually about baseless claims like "Linux is proven to be more secure".
> > It's not proven. It may be, but such proof does not exist in any kind
of
> > empiracal study. Further, you'll also note that most of my arguments
tend
> > to be about debunking wild claims made by Linux zealots.
> >
> I stand corrected. Aguements like, "Linux is more flexible" is based on a
> fact, however, "Linux is proven to be more secure" is based sole on a
> opinion. Yes, Linux can be is more secure in that if you were to shut down
> every service un required, you would less likely be hacked, however,
Windows
> is not the same, esp, with the latest IE, ActiveX, it is almost impossible
> to properly secure a Windows machine, unless you are willing to shell out
> money for a thrid party firewall.
It's completely possible to shut off services, and you can also filter
ports. Windows 2000 has IPSEC and the ability to turn off any port you
want.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Where is this supposed 40% Server market share for Windows?
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 12:17:50 +1200
I had a couple of hours today free so I checked some of the top NZ local
sites, www.stuff.co.nz, www.nzoom.com, www.xtrasite.co.nz, www.govt.nz,
www.ihug.co.nz www.winz.govt.nz
All of the above sites either run Solaris w/ Apache, Linux w/ Apache,
Solaris w/ Netscape Webserver, or IRIX w/ Zeus 3.3. Where may I ask is this
"swarm" or Windows servers? if they have such as great price vs.
performance, why aren't these sites running Windows? because it doesnot live
up to the hype, and these companies can see behind the hype, they can see
behind the vail of bullshit that parades the Microsoft website, they are
used because the CEO keeps right out of the decision, aka, let the expects
make the decision.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death,
no body can hear your screams
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 00:19:20 GMT
In article <%%YN6.2467$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Now if it IS a RISC chip which is going to be Intel's new
>> >> premier top of the line bread and butter chip, I'm going
>> >> laugh out loud.
>> >
>> >The IA-64 is *BASED* on PA-RISC technology, it is *NOT* the same chip.
>>
>> It's the same instruction set...
>
>Yeah, and most IBM mainframes today have the same instruction set as the
>original IBM 360 as well, does that mean they're the same processor?
>Itanium also has the x86 instruction set, does that mean that the Pentium
>III is the same as the Itanium?
>
>> >> What I was told was current HP-9000's have had the IA-64 in them
>> >> and they are slow IA-64's which run under 500 mhz.
>> >
>> >You are wrong. Current HP-9000's have the PA-8700 PA-RISC in them, and
>they
>> >run anywhere from 800Mhz to 1Ghz.
>> >
>> >> The ones which are to hit the PC market will be B series
>> >> and will be made to run faster clock cycles.
>> >>
>> >> We run the A series.
>> >>
>> >> Let's see. They have them running at 850 mhz now?
>> >> Is that right...
>> >
>> >Gezuz Charlie. Read HP's own fucking press release.
>> >
>> >http://www.cpus.hp.com/technical_references/8700pr.shtml
>> >
>> >Or, read their Itanium FAQ:
>> >
>> >http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/introduction/faq.html
>> >
>> >"
>> >Q: What is the ItaniumT processor family?
>> >A: Formerly know as IA-64, the ItaniumT processor family (IPF) is the
>> >processor platform that will underpin the future of our computing
>systems.
>> >The IPF is a breakthrough evolution in architecture, based on technology
>> >co-invented by HP and Intel®"
>> >
>> >Note the use of the phrase "that WILL underpin the FUTURE of our
>computing
>> >systems".
>> >
>> >Q: I already own an HP system - does it already support the ItaniumT
>> >processor family?
>> >A: Today's HP 9000 N-Class and L-Class servers are IPF ready and have
>> >several IPF components designed into the current systems, including
>> >chipsets, power supplies and cooling subsystems.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Note that current HP 9000's are Itanium *READY*, and have chipsets
>> >compatible with Itanium, but are not shipping Itaniums.
>>
>> Okay, same instruction set and same pin set also.
>>
>> But it's not the same chip then.
>>
>> Well, okay....
>
>I'm not sure if they have the same pinouts or not. Their chipsets might
>reroute the pins depending on which processor is installed. But, even if it
>is the same pinout, it doesn't mean much. It's the internal architecture of
>the CPU that is the difference between EPIC and RISC, not its pinout.
>
Instruction sets are meaningless unless there's specific hardware
inside the chip to tie the operations to specific hardware
functions. We are not trying to say that one or the other
is an emulation....
Further, since they have the same chip pins and the 9000's
are therefore compatible with this new chip already, it's
safe to say the only thing this manuever is doing is transfering
the burden and cost from one Intel subsidy to the main body.
There may be some slight improvement in newer chips, but
the architecture is the same...
So therefore, Intel is sitting on this chip until MS get's
it OS ready for market. Without MS's approval the chip
wouldn't make a grand slam on the market.
Now, if you want to continue to pick bones with me about
the model numbers on the two chips or the fact one has
double or 4 times the cache the predicessor had, that's
fine. The point I'm trying to make is architecturally
the two chips are identical. And it doesn't require
2-3 years for a simple expansion of an already existing
and proven design in use by an Intel subsidary.
I'm still tickled PINK that this was a RISC design.
Imagine that! After all that BEEFING between Intel
and Motorola. Intel is just admitting they were
meatheads so they are stealing their design concept!
You know, an HP rep told me that to compare the performance
of one of the G4 chips in a MAC and this new IA-64, there
would be no difference. He said I was drooling on
the wrong machine. Now I know what he was really refering
to. What he was trying to say was that RISC is RISC...
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:21:38 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e9hcj$573$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well, so far, the only real tests of price/performance that Linux
machines
> > have participated in is the TPC benchmark, and that showed a
> > price/performance ratio of over twice that of the Win2k box.
> >
> > > Linux is at least as fast, if not faster.
> >
> > Depends on the task. Linux is *NOT* as fast or faster for things like
> Video
> > editing, for instance.
>
> No one here (in COLA) ever said that it was suitable, yet, faster at
> rendering videos. Yes, for raw operations Linux is faster. If I were to
> render a video, I would actually get a SGI O2 w/ the video capture add-on.
> MPEG compression on the fly, real time video rendering and other fancy
> features at the click of a mouse button. Something Wintel users only dream
> about. If you really wanted to improve the video capabilities, grab a
copy
> of XIG X-Server w/ advance OpenGL capabilites at a mature level which
would
> beat what Windows has to offer.
What exactly does OpenGL have to do with non-linear editing?
In any event, the features you mention have been available for Windows for
quite some time. Avid, who has 80% of the high end market runs on Macs and
NT systems.
> > > Linux has been proven to be more stable.
> >
> > It has? How? I've seen no verifiable studies that show Linux's uptime
to
> > be greater than anything else.
>
> Uptime vs. the cost of the program. Windows 2000 Server at $NZ1K, say,
200
> days uptime, which works out to be $5 per day, vs. Linux costs $0, say 200
> days uptime which works out to be $0 per day.
But now you must write your own software to do many things that Windows has
commercial software available to do. As mentioned, Video editing, sound
design, CAD/CAM, and many others.
> > > Linux has proven to be more secure.
> >
> > Again, it has? What do you call the 49 security bulletins in the last 6
> > months for Red Hat?
>
> Most people I know who run servers use Debian. Hence that comment is just
a
> psuedo fact.
Interesting, Debian lists 61 security patches so far in 2001 alone.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce-01/threads.html
> > > So, why would anyone choose a Microsoft solution?
> >
> > Software.
>
> No, alignment with the strong company in the industry. If you are a start
> up, you want to align yourself with a big software vendor and use that
> alignment to create alliances with larger companies.
Speaking as someone that has worked for several startups, this wasn't it at
all. It was about the tools available to develop the software we wanted to
develop, and the market to which we were going to sell (Healthcare, for
instance).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 20 May 2001 19:33:26 -0500
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:5jYN6.48460
> As for my not being open to debate on the fact that the 68000 was far
> superior to Intel's offerings of the time...I am also not open to debate
> that the sky is blue. I just don't find it interesting to debate that
which
> is not debatable.
Actually, the sky isn't blue. The sky is colorless, but due to the light
filtering properties of the atmosphere, when light is reflected off the
earth then reflected back from the sky, it appears to have a blue color.
Which is why the stars aren't blue when we look at them from earth.
But you're right, it's uninteresting to argue that, despite the fact that
you're wrong.
> It is the fact that the Motorola chips were superior to Intel's as well as
> being easier (and more fun!) to develop for that destroys your argument in
> this thread. As you know, programmers hated the segmented architecture of
> Intel machines. As you also know, they loved the flat addressing of the
> Motorola 680x0 line. Yet they developed for the one they hated to develop
> for. This indisputable fact directly contradicts your arguments in this
> thread. You know this, too.
Actually, "superior" is a subjective claim. I consider the Intel processor
supperior because it is so prevalent, which is the same reason I consider
VHS to be superior to Betamax.
Yes, the 68000 was superior in ease of programming, yes it was superior in
ease of motherboard design, no it wasn't superior in things like string
operations in which the x86 had dedicated registers and instructions for the
process. Also, the 68000 gave you a nasty performance penalty for using
long addressing versus 16 bit addressing.
> That you know all this, yet continue to make the same false arguments,
makes
> you one of Bill's whores. He has lots of them. :)
The 6502 was superior to the 68000 in many ways. For instance, nearly all
instructions took only a single clock cycle to execute, but the 68000 had
more cycles available.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where is this supposed 40% Server market share for Windows?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:38:55 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e9mqi$8l3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I had a couple of hours today free so I checked some of the top NZ local
> sites, www.stuff.co.nz, www.nzoom.com, www.xtrasite.co.nz, www.govt.nz,
> www.ihug.co.nz www.winz.govt.nz
>
> All of the above sites either run Solaris w/ Apache, Linux w/ Apache,
> Solaris w/ Netscape Webserver, or IRIX w/ Zeus 3.3. Where may I ask is
this
> "swarm" or Windows servers? if they have such as great price vs.
> performance, why aren't these sites running Windows? because it doesnot
live
> up to the hype, and these companies can see behind the hype, they can see
> behind the vail of bullshit that parades the Microsoft website, they are
> used because the CEO keeps right out of the decision, aka, let the expects
> make the decision.
And why aren't they all running Linux then? Your arguments are specious.
Personal choice means a lot, and whoever makes that choice has control over
what servers to use. The longest uptime servers are all FreeBSD and BSD/OS
boxes according to Netcraft. Why isn't everyone running FreeBSD? Obviously
the "experts" have other reasons.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
