Linux-Advocacy Digest #663, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Jan Johanson and racism. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Dell Meets Estimates ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Dell Meets Estimates ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Jasper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:48:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> >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....
>>
>> Certainly Itanium *IS* emulating PA-RISC as well as x86.
>>
>> http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/advantage/aries.html
>>
>> "With our Aries emulator that will be bundled with all ItaniumT processor
>> family systems, you can execute PA-RISC applications"
>>
>> > 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...
>>
>> You don't appear to understand what a processor architecture is. It's
>> architecture includes such things as pipelining, branch prediction and
>> speculation, loop unrolling, etc... these are all wildly different from the
>> PA-RISC chip, and despite what you want to believe, they're not
>> pin-compatible, since these processors are installed in "packages" and not
>> plugged directly into the motherboard.
>>
>
>But these are for the processing efficiencies... not the actual
>instruction set.
>Hp did say on their web site that the PA series can execute the IA-64
>instruction set.
>What Hp didn't say was if an emulator was needed or not. But emulating
>another processor would only be slow, so I don't think that this is what
>Hp is doing.
I don't think so either and I'd just like to say for the record
that Erik Fuckbush is full of shit.
The pins are the same between the two chips.
They are the same chip.
Finally, I was working with chip cpu's before you were born
EF.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> You still haven't a clue what you're talking about.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> They are nothing alike. In fact, the way that you upgrade the L-class
>> HP-9000 is with a board level replacement.
>>
>> http://www.hp.com/products1/unixservers/entrylevel/lclass/infolibrary/sysgui
>> de.html
>>
>> > 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!
>>
>> HP created EPIC, and teamed up with Intel to create Itanium. EPIC is not
>> RISC, and Itanium is not RISC.
>>
>> > 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...
>>
>> Yeah, I'm sure he did. Just like he told you that you were buying IA64
>> HP9000's, right?
>
>--
>V
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:49:04 GMT
In article <P36O6.2565$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >> >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....
>> >
>> > Certainly Itanium *IS* emulating PA-RISC as well as x86.
>> >
>> > http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/advantage/aries.html
>> >
>> > "With our Aries emulator that will be bundled with all ItaniumT
>processor
>> > family systems, you can execute PA-RISC applications"
>> >
>> > > 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...
>> >
>> > You don't appear to understand what a processor architecture is. It's
>> > architecture includes such things as pipelining, branch prediction and
>> > speculation, loop unrolling, etc... these are all wildly different from
>the
>> > PA-RISC chip, and despite what you want to believe, they're not
>> > pin-compatible, since these processors are installed in "packages" and
>not
>> > plugged directly into the motherboard.
>> >
>>
>> But these are for the processing efficiencies... not the actual
>> instruction set.
>> Hp did say on their web site that the PA series can execute the IA-64
>> instruction set.
>> What Hp didn't say was if an emulator was needed or not. But emulating
>> another processor would only be slow, so I don't think that this is what
>> Hp is doing.
>
>Perhaps you misread something. Everything I have read, including the link
>above state that the Itanium will execute PA-RISC in emulation, not the
>other way around.
>
No, he didn't mis-read anything. What we've just discovered is your
full of shit again.
Thanks for playing.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Jan Johanson and racism.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:52:55 GMT
In article <Id2O6.14224$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Boris Dynin wrote:
>Charlie Ebert - ass headed idiot. You are a joke Charlie. Your laughable
>posts only harm Linux or whatever your cause it. Go get college degree
>before you post on this newsgroup.
>
>Boris
>
Oh hi Boris! Where's your sidekick Natachai?
Well Boris here was the one who told us all
we should keep windows right after Windows
XP was stolen from Microsoft HQ by communists
who used the internet as their weapon.
The communists are damn clever people when
they attacked Microsoft. They went for the
weakest part of the Microsoft system, it's
internet connection.
Anyway, Boris's message was for us to keep
running our Windows products. The Communists
would appreciate that if you would.
That windows was just fine and dandy for them.
Nice to see you again Boris. I forgot that
sometimes Wintrolls can be international spies.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
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: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:56:38 GMT
In article <ol1O6.2078$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Business has one simple objective. To make a profit.
>> The more they can increase sales and reduce the
>> expenses the more that profit becomes.
>>
>> A Redhat equipped Web server is less than 1/10 the
>> cost of an equivalent Microsoft server.
>>
>> There has never been a sucessful company who's
>> chose the more expensive way of doing business.
>
>
>Less than 1/10? Only the cheapest?
>
>Charlie, your knowledge of business is right up there with your English. It
>amazes me that anyone could somehow not learn to spell as many words as you
>have. It's astounding. Next to that your business acumen is just so
>obviously... equivalent.
>
>-- Mike --
>
Thanks Mike. Did I tell you that Linux is in it's 4th year of
record #1 market leader growth?
Oh, and BTW, fuck off Mike.
Drive you car into a bridge embankment and end your miserable
life.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:57:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS\PL wrote:
>Mike wrote:
>
>>
>> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> Business has one simple objective. To make a profit.
>>> The more they can increase sales and reduce the
>>> expenses the more that profit becomes.
>
>Business doesn't have one simple objective. But if it did, the priority
>should idealy be growth and equity, not profit.
>
>>>
>>> A Redhat equipped Web server is less than 1/10 the
>>> cost of an equivalent Microsoft server.
>
>So what. It's all a depreciated tax write off. That's just one more thing
>that Windows is better at. :-)
>
>>> There has never been a sucessful company who's
>>> chose the more expensive way of doing business.
>
>Companies take the high road every day on a number of issues. The more
>successfull ones do it more often than the non-successfull ones.
>
>> Less than 1/10? Only the cheapest?
>>
>> Charlie, your knowledge of business is right up there with your English.
>> It amazes me that anyone could somehow not learn to spell as many words as
>> you have. It's astounding. Next to that your business acumen is just so
>> obviously... equivalent.
>>
>> -- Mike --
>
>
Totally incorrect sir! You must be a CEO.
It showes.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:06:34 +0100
>> > 1. Toilet
>> > 2. Thunder box
>> > 3. The throne
>> > 4. Shit house
>> > 5. The crapper
>> > 6. The can
>>
>> whatever happened to
>>
>> 7. the loo
>> 8. the bog
>
> 9) the kludge
10) Khazi
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:09:24 +1200
> You're both wrong. Sun doesn't make chips, and National doesn't make chips
> for Sun. Sun designs their own chips, and they are currently manufactured
by
> a company other than National and Fujitsu.
>
> In the end, 2 has a point, even if it is poorly elucidated, thinly masked
> hyperbole. On the other hand, Matthew, you don't know what you're talking
> about.
>
> Sun isn't very competitive in the low end server market, and their volumes
> aren't high enough to compete effectively with Intel, _if_ Intel can
produce
> a competitive high end processor, _and_ there is an operating system that
> can compete with Solaris.
I must being thinking about a different company. I know recently they
signed up quite a large manufacturer in Taiwan so that Ultra Sparc IIe chips
can be produced in a significant number so that ecomies of scale can be
reached so that SUN can compete price vs. performance.
>
> Intel's next processor is likely to compete effectively, but Linux today
> can't compete with Solaris over the entire range of Sun's products. The
high
> Sun machines can run something like 32 processors, each with many
gigabytes
> of RAM. If you're looking for a scalable system, that's the ultimate: you
> can scale from a basic single processor server all the way up to the high
> end machine, without much more work than putting in a new machine. There
is
> no equivalent to that in the Linux or Windows worlds, and it gives Sun an
> important selling point: they scale further. If you're a growing business,
> that can be a powerful motivation to choose Sun for the low end server,
even
> though the price/performance isn't as good.
Linux in the short term will not sweep in and replace UNIX servers. They
will grandually slip in to a UNIX environment with out any problems, and as
each server need replacing, they will replace the old UNIX server with a
nice new Linux based one. Windows on the other hand will be a harder task
as Linux will be up against the MSCI, Microsoft Certified Idiot, who doesn't
want the NT server to go because if it weren't for the nice and dandy GUI,
they wouldn't be able to admin a server, even though most smart UNIX/Linux
and Linux know that many distros come with menu driven configuration tools
or webbrowser based ones.
>
> But, neither the Linux folks or Microsoft have shown any inclination to
let
> things be, and it would be naive to bet against either of them mounting a
> serious challenge to Sun in the future. It would also be naive to bet that
> Sun would sit back and rest on their laurels, but in Sun's case, it's
harder
> to see what they can do about it.
SUN will still be there. With the increased CPU manufacturing power, the
cost per unit will decrease (due to economies of scale) and as a result, be
able to compete easily with the Intel based servers.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:03:08 +0200
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9du0tl$gol$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting choice of words - "owned the category". It's amazing what
you
>> can do with enough money and the influence it brings - you can buy all
>sorts
>> of benchmark results.
>
>Well, given this is a benchmark committe that has members known to be quite
>hostile to MS and in daily direct competition with MS - I think it's more
>than safe to assume these tests are not buyable by anyone.
>
There are legal ways to "buy" things as well, you know. You make it sound
like I implied MS bribes the committe - is MS so corrupt that this is your
automatic assumption? I was actually referring to the perfectly legal
competitive (and anti-competitive) tactics used by most large, rich groups
such as "we're not playing your game until you change the rules to suit us".
Money and influence has a great deal to say in these things, and having
enemies on the committe will only limit some of the illegal ways to
influence the results, not the legal ones.
>>One aspect is that lower-end Linux solutions just
>> cannot compete because they can't pay the entrance fees - $10k is a drop
>in
>> the ocean for MS, but a great deal more for cash-strapped free software
>
>$10K? Redhat spends that much on bandwidth for losers to take it's warez
for
>"free"
>
Do you mean to say that because Redhat can afford to run their business
(their download sites are a major part of their business, both for paying
customers and non-paying Redhat users), they should be happy to give the
same money to some rich-mans' club with extortianate membership fees? I try
to avoid personal remarks in newsgroups, but that really is one of the most
stupid arguements I have heard for a long time.
>> companies. The other aspect is that the companies with the money make
the
>> rules. MS (and other big commercial companies) prevent publication of
>> benchmarks that do not go their way, and they also heavily influence the
>> conditions of benchmarks to improve their own standing.
>
>Totally untrue and completely without any foundation. There isn't a
>comercial db maker that doesnt' include a clause to prevent publishing
>unverified benchmark results. Otherwise, what would stop oracle from making
>up some hacked benchmark showing Oracle smoking past SQL 2000 ?
>
>Hiding behing the "MS bought it" defense is really quite desperate and
lame.
First you claim that MS makes no such restrictions, then you defend them by
saying everyone does it - there's nothing like a good, consistent logical
viewpoint. There are good reasons why *all* the big commercial companies
have restrictions on publications of benchmarks - they are not the slightest
bit interested in fair or informative benchmarks - their goal is to sell
more of their software. This is a solid business decision, but it does mean
that it is impossible to publish independant results.
>>
>> W2k and MS SQL Server may well make a reasonable solution for
medium-sized
>> solutions - you can pay more for faster and more solid high-end unix
>systems
>> which have a significantly higher cost per transaction.
>
>Not sure I follow you here. You can pay a lot lot more money to get much
>less performance from a "solid high-end" unix system?
>
Try reading - it makes it easier to follow a discussion.
>> But you could
>> almost certainly make an open source solution at a fraction of the price
p
>er
>> transaction, even though it may be slower than the MS solution.
>
>It's been proven over and over and over and especially in this thread - the
>cost of the OS is nothing. The cost of the software is not significant to
>the overall cost of the entire project. The "free" open source project
would
>not make any "fractions" appear.
>
>Besides - tell me what company is going to trust their multi(b|m)illion
>dollar operation to software created by someone as a hobby?
>
High-end Unix, W2K, and low-end unix systems satisfy different types of
uses. Low-end systems are going to give you the best cost per transaction
figures, and are perfect for smaller uses. You don't get high level of
support, and you might risk longer downtimes while fixing problems, but you
get a very cheap system. W2K fits better in the mid range, where you are
willing to pay significantly more, but are looking for a more polished
system. For the high end, you want much greater reliability and support,
and are willing to pay for it. For that, you go for major Unix vendors.
You look for companies who have had servers running for over 10 years and
can replace any piece of failed hardware without powering off - not
companies who will sell you "our most stable OS ever - we know we said the
same thing last year, but this time we really mean it". When W2K is five
years old, you can compare its long-term reliability with that of the old
school Unix systems, but not before. Linux is in the same boat - it is
still too young to be pitted against the old systems, but it compares well
against Windows.
>
>> But such
>> solutions are excluded from these type of benchmarks because of the
>entrance
>> fees - and there is little point in producing seperate, free benchmarks
>> because the commercial competitors will refuse to compete.
>
>You are terribly misinformed.
>
Please inform us of the free-to-enter, independant benchmarks in which
commercial companies are willing to compete with free systems.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:12:03 +1200
> > remember to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the list as well.
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner
> >
> >
> Are you claiming that Flatfish *is* Ubercat ????
>
> I don't think this is true, as Flattie isnt as manic
> or as technically savvy as Ubercat, imho.
>
> No offence implied Flatty :)
>
Sorry :( At least flatfish isn't as analy retentive as ubercat.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:03:32 +0100
Edward Rosten wrote:
>> I looked into this once, and decided that MS could blow goats before I'd
>> devote serious spare-time to figuring out what was going on.
>
> Did you figure it out <g>
No. There was paint that I urgently needed to watch drying.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Actually, come to think of it, I don't think your opponent, your audience,
or the metropolitan Tokyo area would be in much better shape.
-- Jeff Huo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:09:19 +0100
Jan Johanson wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not for WSH-compliance, you can't.
>
> "WSH compliance" - you just made that up, come on admit it.
No. Well, I don't know about the precise phrase, but WSH-enabling a
language interpreter (what I'd define as making it WSH-compliant) is
not something that is 100% trivial.
>> There's more to it than that. I
>> looked into this once, and decided that MS could blow goats before I'd
>> devote serious spare-time to figuring out what was going on.
>
> Figuring out WSH? Ummm. .. can anyone be that dense and operate a computer.
> You write a tiny piece of BASIC code (you can type 'PRINT "HELLO WORLD"'
> right?) and then by giving it an executable extention (.vbs) it runs. Hard?
That's just using it, dimbo. Making a language interpreter work with
WSH is a bit more complex (largely because MS are not what I'd describe
as stellar in the quality of their documentation.) If I happen to be
talking over your head here, I'd not be surprised; your comments
indicate that our minds operate in incompatible ways...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Actually, come to think of it, I don't think your opponent, your audience,
or the metropolitan Tokyo area would be in much better shape.
-- Jeff Huo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:14:27 +1200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Its nice to see yet another truthful account of what REALLY happens when
> > installing Linux.
>
> It must be the exception rather than the rule.
>
Your problems were/are spurred from an unsupported card (for anti-aliasing),
and bad memory. Nothing to do with Linux what so ever.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 21 May 2001 12:20:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 21 May 2001 00:47:03 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 19 May 2001 11:15:27 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> gotta love the Linux advocacy in this thread :)
>> >
>> >HAHA!! Maybe we need an app running under Linux that will evaluate the
>> >strengths of condoms??
>>
>> Actually, you can already find one, in operation, in the CIDAL plant,
>> in Santa Fe, Argentina, the largest condom manufacturer of South
>> America.
>
>Is it running under Linux?? :-))
Yes. It controls something that is amazingly similar to a dildo connected
to a compressor (among other gadgets), and is used to test the condoms.
>I wonder if they use LaTex for their documentation... or is it for the
>condoms?? :-))
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:23:28 +1200
> Working is serious fucking business. Lord forbid we should enjoy the
> job and have a relaxed atmosphere. That wouldn't be "professional,"
> just like wearing a pair of shorts isn't "professional." I went to
> Europe for six months and had a great time. When I came back some of
> the consulting agencies thought it was a "problem" that I hadn't
> worked in the last six months. I sure didn't think it was a problem.
> Many people here have their priorities all out of whack. Work like a
> dog for the majority of your life, worrying about if what you say will
> offend someone or not, sounds like crap to me.
I know. Could you imagine, happy employee's = increase in productivity. How
shocking is that? very!
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:27:19 +0100
> If you're looking for a scalable system, that's the
> ultimate: you can scale from a basic single processor server all the way
> up to the high end machine, without much more work than putting in a new
> machine. There is no equivalent to that in the Linux or Windows worlds,
> and it gives Sun an important selling point: they scale further.
That is in no way true. Linux scales from far lowre than solaris to
nearly as high. Both will run on anything from a single processor machine
(linux goes to lower ones) through mainframes up to supercomputers (where
solaris goes slghtly higher).
Linux is one of the most scalable OSs on the planet, along with solaris.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:27:51 +1200
> Thanks Mike. Did I tell you that Linux is in it's 4th year of
> record #1 market leader growth?
>
> Oh, and BTW, fuck off Mike.
> Drive you car into a bridge embankment and end your miserable
> life.
LOL!
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jasper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 12:29:14 GMT
On 20 May 2001 13:35:11 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I thought you were educated? Time to go back to class...
>
>radio waves travel slower than light...
>
How embarrissing. Radio waves are light.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
