Linux-Advocacy Digest #823, Volume #34 Mon, 28 May 01 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!! (pip)
OS Shock (David)
Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!! ("2 + 2")
Re: OS Shock (pip)
Re: OS Shock ("Flacco")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!!
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:28:12 +0100
"Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" wrote:
>
> > Then there are no killer OSs at all.
> >
> > Robert G Smith
>
> Yes there are, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux 2.4 and AIX-5L, all of them are
> Itanium ready, and ready to roll. Windows isn't even ready yet!
I think you'll find they are not the killer OS referred to. That is the
illusive creature where you don't care what it is because it works. Your
software works, and it is secure and reliable. It has all the tools and
allows ease of use, yet fine tuning. It's interface is standards
compliant and well exposed. It probably is open source all well. It has
excellent peripheral support. Essentially it is invisible to those who
don't care about it. It is probably "self healing" and "self updating"
with the use of AI techniques. It probably works on most if not all
architectures. It has expert systems support tools for problem diagnosis
and automatic resolution. It is flexible. It is part of the networked
world. It adapts to users needs not marketing gimmicks.
The killer OS is yet to arrive. I have certainly never used one.
------------------------------
Subject: OS Shock
From: David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:04:50 GMT
After 19 months running Linux exclusively, I installed Windows 2000
on my test box over the weekend, residing on a small drive I had
kicking around.
It strikes me, Windows is like someone took several pictures of the
concept of computing, and idiot-windowed them into an arbitrary, two
dimensional commercial. If you try to stray off the happy-click path,
you find not the intrigue of the system, but subtle, opaque FUD
packaged for the lowest denominator.
MS is like the theme park of computing. You can shake Micky Mouse hand
but never ever get to know him or take up residence in that 'happy'
place. Keep clicking through please. MS brain wash/waste program
requires you move through the FUD like tape through a recorder.
Experience it. Get it on your shoes and in your dreams. More happy
dribble is but a click away.
Yesterday at an MS using friend of mines, I was not really all that
surprised to see advertising coming up on his screen in the programs.
I was horrified, but not surprised.
If I couldn't run Linux, I'd sell all my computer equipment and get
into something else, like flower arrangements or basket weaving.
I would not use that other unconfigurable, dysfunctional mess OS.
I just had to turn the test box off. Spoiled rotten by the depth and
scope of Linux.
I'll keep the install around mostly for the occasional test or just as
a curiosity.
David S. Hamilton
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!!
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 09:21:36 -0400
The Itanium has VLIW instructions (don't confuse the size of these with
Itanium's 64 bit data type environment--64 bit is of much significance
itself but not the real story here).
For backward capatibility in the Intel world only, the IA64 chips include a
IA32 chip on board as well. So, yes, Linux and Windows and any Unix
implementation geared to the x86 line could run on it, but no one would do
that, since the IA32 onboard chip is not state of art.
The Itanium is basically a "proof of concept" chip. That's why I call
Windows XP Workstation/Server eXPimental. But all of this first generation
of VLIW is basically an experiement to see how it plays out in the real
world.
Sun is not supporting Itanium at all, and have their own rough equivalent,
called MAJC for "Microprocessor Architecture for Java Computing." All of
these VLIW chips go beyond RISC/CISC which is a term of little relevance in
a world of OOO, long pipelines, branch prediction, etc.
In particular, the VLIW compilers are very demanding. The chip itself is not
the real challenge, since the whole point is taking much functionality out
of silicon and doing it in software, so the high transistor counts can CRANK
IT UP for big scientific, database, multimedia and other high demand uses.
The whole point is that the next IA64 chip could have 8 parallel execution
slots instead of 4. This depends on compilers feeding the beast by, in
effect, making parallel code and overcoming bottlenecks such as loading.
Specialized execution engines, such as .NET and Java, have the advantage
with JIT compilers that can benefit from code that has already been massaged
down to an intermediate stage such as bytecode or IL.
2 + 2
Matthew Gardiner (BOFH) wrote in message <9esfpd$6m9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Let me see, I can either choose AIX-5L, HP-UX, Solaris, Linux 2.4 or
Windows 64bit, which is unproven. Most people know which one's
>I will consider in a large Itanium server roll out. A clue for the
clueless, it ain't Windows.
>
>Just because SUN and IBM don't advertise on the end luser magazines like
.net or PCWorld, doesn't mean they no product's. I guess
>your ignorance is due to too much exposure around Windows.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
>--
>I am the blue screen of death
>Nobody can hear your screams
>----
>I am the resident BOFH if you don't like it
>go rm -rf /home/luser yourself
>"rgs50" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4whQ6.105$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Yes, Sun and IBM have VLSI chips but they do not have Microsoft in back
of
>> them producing a KILLER OS ( Windows 2000 TWO or whistler or Win NT
64 ).
>> There are also over 300 applications already ported to the Itanium with
over
>> 4,000 ( four thousand ) in the process of being ported to Itanium. Also
>> when the 386 was introduced it hit the market like a brick hitting a
plate
>> glass window and was selling at 50 % or more than the chips list price
>> because there was so much demand.
>>
>> Robert G Smith
>>
>> 2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9erv5h$ctg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Snauk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Kenny Chaffin wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Not gonna happen. People trust sun servers. What operating system
are
>> > >> > they gonna use on the chip? Solaris is proven on sun hardware,
>> > certainly
>> > >> > not on Itanium or even much used on pentiums....
>> > >>
>> > >> But what about Linux,
>> > >> and IBM's commitment to Linux?
>> >
>> > Linux is one of Intel's biggest customers on the server. Also, the
Linux
>> > camp has the talent to develop the compilers that this chip requires.
>> >
>> > Of course, Itanium, if successful, is the VLIW successor for both
Windows
>> > and Unix.
>> >
>> > However, both Sun and IBM have competing VLIW chips.
>> >
>> > 2 + 2
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >> --------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
>> > >> Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
>> > >> -----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
>> > >
>> > >When you see IBM using Linux as opposed to their Unix variant then
maybe.
>> > >Also IBM makes their own chips for a lot of the high end servers.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS Shock
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:29:04 +0100
You forgot to add:
David wrote:
>
<RANT>
[pointless stuff]
> David S. Hamilton
</RANT>
It seems a bit odd that you would shell out all that money for such a
"MS brain wash/waste program" for "[keeping] the install around mostly
for the occasional test or just as
a curiosity."
My, my, even with people like yourself M$ can peddle their wares to.
Does that not strike you as DEEPLY IRONIC ?
If you really feel that strongly then I would suggest you follow the RMS
GNU line of "only free software".
Anyway, I hope that you continue to enjoy Linux, but when trying to
advocate it you may wish in the future to use more substantive
arguments. Someone may suggest that you are a "LinTroll" (or at least a
very sick man for using Emacs as a news agent :) ).
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS Shock
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:43:07 GMT
Do you know what FUD is? I have a hard time understanding your repeated
use of the term in context.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 28 May 2001 06:54:15 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Mathew wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 May 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David L. Moffitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:34:49 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > > >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:15:03 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > > >> >> >"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Aw, suck my dick, you little right wing turd. I'll insult little
> > > > >> >> >> phoney fuckheads like you all I want. I've earned my rights to
> > > > >> >> >> criticize little bastards like you.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >I hope you get your wish for nationwide gun ban. Then me and all my
> > > > >> >> >rightwing gunnut friends can legally invade your home and totally
> > > > >> >> >trash it out looking for yours.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Apparently you are unaware that doing such a thing is illegal,
> > > > >> >> and a ban on guns would not change that situation. In fact, even without
> > > > >> >> a gun, according to what I have read lately, he would be legally
> > > > >> >> entitled to anally electrocute you.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Evidently, you haven't noticed that the POLICE and the (all volounteer)
>ARMY
> > > > >> >and MARINES are all, according to the anti-gun people, "right wing gun
>nuts"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You are not a policeman, and you are not a soldier. You are a reservist.
> > > > >> You are, though, a right wing nut, and if you did the above, it would be
> > > > >> illegal.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >Who the fuck is going to enforce this gun ban, other than the POLICE,
> > > > >> >the ARMY and the MARINES?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The police, yes. The army and the marines, no, because they are not
> > > > >> law enforcement agencies. It is illegal for a soldier to enter
> > > > >> your house without permission, is it not?
> > > > >
> > > > >%%%% They did at Waco.
> > > >
> > > > Those were not soldiers, they were federal law enforcement agencies.
> > > > And they did have permission, in the form of a search warrant.
> > >
> > > 1. They did NOT have the warrant with them
> > >
> > > 2. The warrant was void, because it was obtained under false pretenses.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> And even a policeman will need a search warrant.
> > > > >
> > > > >%%%% They didn't at Waco.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And having guns did them a whole lot of good, to those Davidians,
> > > > didn't it?
> > >
> > > Are you saying that if confronted with a totalitarian regime, one
> > > should just submit?
Notice how here Aaron Kulkis says the Davidians were confronted with a
totalitarian regime.
> > > Go find a holocaust survivor to clue you into reality.
> >
> > But the Dravidians became a Totalitarin regime under Koresh,idiot.
> >
>
> Really?
>
> To be a "totalitarian regime" then he would have to have his
> own government, with it's own police, court, jails, embassies
> and ambassadors, and currency (to name just a few things).
And here, Aaron Kulkis defines some requirements of a regime.
Weird, coming from the guy that says the Davidians were defending
against a totalitarian regime, yet says that regime consisted of only
the ATF. Which of course doesn't have its own currency.
OTOH, perhaps Aaron implies the US goverment (that does have a currency)
is the totalitarian regime the Davidians were defending against. Yet he
is a hired gun of the US government!
Aaron, are you a minion of a totalitarian regime, and proud of it?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: 28 May 2001 06:56:59 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 24 May 2001 10:16:48 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, 24 May 2001 02:37:16 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > > >> >Steve Chaney wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Errunt R Kookla eeped:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> >No need to go to such expense, seeing how you promptly destroyed
>yourself.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Welch!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >As I said...why should I go to the trouble of convening a court
> > > > >> >to destroy you....
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >when you fucking self destructed in less than 10 minutes.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So, when you say "say that again and I'll see you in court", you
> > > > >> actually mean "say that again and I will pretend you didn't"?
> > > > >
> > > > >He lost all credibility when he got more ridiculous the next time around.
> > > > >
> > > > >No need to prosecute the matter when Steve off's himself.
> > > >
> > > > So, yes, you will pretend he didn't say anything. Nice to know you are
> > > > as spineless as I suspected.
> > >
> > > No. I noticed that when he destroyed his own credibility, there
> > > was no longer any damage being done by his original statement.
> >
> > Except to your image. You look like a chicken now.
> >
> > > i.e. Steve undid his own problematic behavior by going even more extreme.
> >
> > And thus pushing you over your inaction threshold.
>
>
> Why would I waste time and money on a problem who solved himself?
To keep your word? Of course for some it means more than for others.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:05:56 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > a) A competitor goes out of business as a
> > direct result of Microsoft's actions.
[snip]
> > b) A competitor is put out of business
> > by Microsoft.
[snip]
> > What's the difference?
>
> The difference is that in the 2nd, m$ manipulates licenses, freezes the
> market or outright steals the competitor's product. It is illegal.
These don't count as action by Microsoft somehow?
Or are the failures of MS competitors not direct
results of these things? Are they indirect results
somehow?
[snip]
> > Okay. But what if they act *competitively* to acheive
> > these ends? Is that still different?
>
> m$ had NEVER competed on a level playing field. NEVER.
Not even when selling their first BASIC
for the Altair?
Still, I'm not really asking about that. As far as
I can see, level playing fields are pretty much
impossible in practice. There will always
be advantages and disadvantages; the
question I am asking is about which
ones are possible.
Hypothetically, what if Microsoft had
focused entirely on product quality and
price, and never did any of the other
things that you object to.
Could they have secured the dominance
they now have in this way? If not, why
not?
[snip]
> > Oh, I dunno. I think you'll find the
> > prosecution less easy than you think.
>
> Thats because m$ has eveyone showed that if m4 falls, so will teh
> economy.... which is bullshit.
Certainly is. If MS falls, for real, there would be
chaos in the business for a short time- but another
company would take its place soon enough. I doubt
there would be large scale economic implications
from such a disruption.
[snip]
> > > Why do you think
> > > RedHat GPLs some of their developments?
> >
> > They gotta. The GPL is all nasty and viral; the reason
> > why they'd even touch the stuff is that they can get
> > (some) programmers working for free that way.
>
> Nasty? NAsty? Its nasty to have altruistic people create things, and
> then want to make sure no can take those thing proprietary?
It's nasty to try to compell others to adhere
to your own ideology; that's what the GPL
is about.
The GPL doesn't just prevent someone from
making your stuff proprietary- practically any
OSS license will do that- it makes other people's
stuff non-proprietary.
This is why most corporations won't touch
the stuff, inspite of the tremendous advantage
of having free-as-in-beer programmers working
on it.
[snip]
> > Java isn't worth a damn to Sun if
> > it isn't written for; they are going out
> > of the way to encourge this; it's
> > the same way MS gives away
> > the Win32 docs to all comers, rather
> > than keeping them secret.
>
> They dont give away ALL the docs. They keep some things hidden.
No, they don't. Or at least, whenever
I've looked into particular examples,
I've always found the allegedly hidden
stuff on MS's website.
[snip]
> > > they don't do so because using the GNU code-base is a superior
approach
> > > for anyone interested,
> >
> > I don't really agree- not if you want to compete
> > on the desktop. But you knew that.
>
> And what is wrong with GNU code on the desktop?
It does not perform the right tasks, and it's
got lousy a user-interface for the most part.
> What is wrong with Star
> Office, Applixware, teh scientific apps, GIMP, xmms, cdparanoia and all
> the others? Huh?
It depends on the product, naturally, but
I don't think very many of those are GNU
software.
Most of the GNU stuff is command line
tools useful mainly to programmers.
[snip]
> > Of course not. You've got to get ahead
> > of MS somehow; otherwise you'll never
> > beat the market's inertia.
>
> As long as m$ maintains its ilgotten monopoly, you cant get ahead of m$
> inthe window$ market.
That is kind of what "mainting it's ill gotten monopoly" means,
actually. But the rewards of getting ahead- and thereby
pilfering said monopoly- are very great.
> They used to brag about that in marketing... they
> would always be ahead becasue they owned the OS.
Oh?
[snip]
> > *Why* can't a monopoly form through
> > competitive actions?
>
> It can. And it can remain - as long as it formed in a competitve way,
> and it is maintained in a competitive manner. The m$ monopoly did NOT
> form that way and it is not maintained that way.
Well, at least you can admit the possibility; I
was trying to chip my way into Max's
hermetically sealed worldview, by exploiting
a contradiction in it.
I'm sorry to see that you don't have that
contradiction, so I can't beat you over the
head with it. :D
[snip]
> > Let's say that nobody *does* do better;
> > *somebody* hsa to have the best proeduct,
> > why couldn't it have been Microsoft?
>
> Becasue it never has.
I rather think is has, but I know you don't;
that's why I was speaking hypothetically.
> > I mean, *hypothetically*.
>
> Do you?
Yes. I do not expect you to admit
to any of the advantages of any of
MS's products; nor Max either.
Besides, I know that MS's quality
products are not the *sole* explaination
here. If they were, DOS would not
have held out for 10 years.
[snip]
> > Sure. So MS doesn't solely pursue dominance
> > through product quality; we can agree on that,
> > I think.
>
> They how did they achieve dominance?
In my opinion? *Partly* through
product quality.
But partly through the errors of their
competitors. They weren't *aggressive*;
they seemed to think that the market
was static and that they didn't need to
go for marketshare or mindshare; their
profitable little niches would never
be threatened.
Apple had a workable GUI system
*years* in advance of Microsoft's
offering; MS had been vastly too
ambitious for 1985 PC technology
and their early Windows product
was unusable; in no small part they
simply waited 5 years for the PC
hardware to catch up.
Apple could have- and in my view
should have- made some kind of effort
to win over the mass market. This means
finding a way to be cheap- and in the
short term, that would have been less
profitable. So they wound up giving
MS the 5 years MS needed.
IBM's OS/2 product ran on cheaper
hardware than Macs, but it did
all the wrong things at first. IBM showed
no understanding of what desktop
computers had to do. They offered
exactly the wrong featureset, one that
made more sense on their minis and
mainframes than on PCs of the day.
Again, MS wasn't divinely ordained
the 5 extra years they needed; they
got them because IBM made a mistake.
[snip]
> > IHMO,they shot at the wrong target this time;
> > Netscape never had a chance unless they could
> > get their code quality under control
>
> Thats crap. NS didnt lose marketshare until m$ "integrated" the browser
> into the OS, and got that exclusive deal with AOL. m$ is STILL so
> dominant that AOL wont use its own browser in its own products.
Microsoft thought Netscape was a threat and
moved aggressively on many fronts to counter;
while that *was* good for the consumer, it was
still based on a false assumption- that Netscape
could become a platform.
We *now* know that Netscape had terrible
code quality problems that precluded any
such strategy from working.
[snip]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
