Linux-Advocacy Digest #914, Volume #34 Sat, 2 Jun 01 16:13:02 EDT
Contents:
The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (.)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What does XP stands for ??? (Peter Hayes)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Ian Pegel")
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (Jesse F. Hughes)
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: SourceForge hacked! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Weevil")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Jonas Due Vesterheden)
Re: Windows 2000 web server probing port 137??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 11:38:13 -0700
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I found this article interesting and not at all fanatical:
> > >
> > > http://www.sdmagazine.com/articles/2001/0105/0105a/0105a.htm
> > >
> > > Here's the teaser lines for it:
> > >
> > > Is Open Source for You? May 2001
> >
> > If it was, would we be running WindowsNT?
>
> Read the article, please.
I used to be a GNU/GPL/Linux proponent. I
was using Linux before it reached v1.x. I
know what the spiel is. But yes, I did
read the article. SSDD.
> > My Lord, you are a dense one, aren't you.
>
> Is this your approach to life -- contumely, ridicule, and
> insults?
Your constant barrage of advertising for
GNU/Linux into COMNA is the reason why
I'm picking on you.
We don't use OpenSource software, because
we know it doesn't work for us. Hence, the
name of this newsgroup,
comp.os.ms-WINDOWS.NT.advocacy.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
If you want to advertise, do it in another forum.
We're not interested in that kind of thing here,
and I think there might be several folks in the
COLA camp who are equally tired of this kind of
advertising for GNU/Linux.
> > Save this drivel for the COLA camp, please.
>
> Have you read the article?
Yes, and I've read hundreds like it.
It seems to me that you automatically
assume that Windows users only use Windows
because we don't know what else is out
there. In most cases, the reason why we
do use Windows is because we DO know what
else is available. But we like WindowsNT
best. In my experience, many WindowsNT
users, including myself, know more about
UNIX and UNIX-workalike operating systems
than most UNIX users do.
Don't get me wrong... I like UNIX
operating systems. But what you need to
understand is that we don't need advertising
in here. If you want to debate about the
technical merits of operating systems, that's
just fine and dandy. If you come across an
interesting article, by all means post it.
That's exactly what this group is for.
But when you attempt to push advertising for
something which we believe to be inferior in our
faces, that is when you are going to get picked
on. If I posted WindowsNT advertisements in COLA,
don't you think I would be mocked and ridiculed as
well? I would, and frankly, I'd deserve it... it's
called "trolling".
Besides, If you had the kind of experience with UNIX
that you seem to pretend to have, you'd understand
why the Linux kernel is completely substandard.
And speaking of source code, another common
observation that we often make in here is that
most people who croon on about how "wonderful"
or "useful" having source code is are the
same kinds of people who wouldn't know what to
do with it if they got their hands on it. I'm
not saying that having source code isn't useful;
it is. But there are too many people advocating
OpenSource software who likely wouldn't know a
thing about changing it, and it shows.
If you like GNU/Linux, then great. Use it and
be happy. If you want to try to convince someone
else to use it, assume that they already know
about it. It's better to assume someone is
smarter than you, and then find out that they
are indeed dullards, than to assume that they
are dullards, only to have them show you to be
a fool.
What it all comes down to is, "all hardware sucks;
all software sucks." Anyone who doesn't understand
that, doesn't understand anything.
In which case, use what you like. Be happy. Let
other do the same.
Okay, I'm done.
* Stephen gets off the podium...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 18:43:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matthew Gardiner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 10 May 2001 19:24:52 +1200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>hmm, lets roll out the reality cannon:
>
>Windows 2000 w/ IIS (average):
>
>Iteration: 3
>Conforming Connections: 8001
>Percent Conform: 100.00%
>Throughput ops/sec: 22719.0
>Response msec: 352.0
>ops/sec/ loadgen 2.84
>kbit/ sec: 339.1
>
>----
>
>Redhat Linux 6.2 (average):
>
>Iteration: 3
>Conforming Connections: 7500
>Percent Conform: 100.00%
>Throughput ops/sec: 21982.1
>Response msec: 340.6
>ops/sec/ loadgen 2.93
>kbit/ sec: 349.8
>
>One does not need to be a genius to see what is happening. Windows 2000
>as a slower response time, and a lower throughput than the Linux Box.
How do you figure? I see a slightly *higher* number of ops/sec,
albeit a slower response time and a lower throughput from a
kbit/sec standpoint. The Win2k box also handled more connections.
Definitely mixed, but definitely competitive, and definitely depends
on what one is measuring. Offhand, I'd say they're nearly identical.
Of course, the Linux variant might be slightly cheaper... :-)
>Also, on needs to look at what kernel is being used. Redhat Linux 6.2
>has the has the (I think) the 2.2.14, I would also be interested whether
>it has been recompiled for the Xeon processor, whether the kernel level
>apache add on has been included, and any other vital kernel related
>information. I would also be interested in why they only chose to test
>Redhat? why not install SuSE Linux 7.1 w/ ReiserFS, then run the test.
Good questions, all. Ideally, though, it wouldn't matter whether they
were using Reiser or ext2, as the pages would all be in cache.
Unless I'm missing something.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 33d:15h:01m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 2 Jun 2001 18:47:39 GMT
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2001 15:33:40 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)) wrote:
>>drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 02 Jun 2001 02:41:27 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>> Because I've got better things to do than read countless posts between
>>> a couple of cunts arguing about some off topic shite.
>>Filter it, dipshit. This is usenet, and you have no more a right to
> Please explain how I can filter it.
>>>>You're a new poster to COLA, Drsquare, why not just get a news
>>> New poster? I've been posting here for years.
>>Ive been posting here longer,
> Wow, I'm impressed.
>>and you have proven yourself over and over
>>again to be nothing short of entirely retarded.
> Oooh, good one. Must've taken you years to think up that one.
>>>>reader that has a scorefile and then you can avoid attempting to
>>>>be a good thought policeman ?
>>> Because then I'd miss other posts.
>>Because youre an idiot and you dont know how to killfile properly. "Years"
>>my ass.
> Sorry, but my newsreader isn't capable enough to filter in such a way.
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Apparantly it is, you ignorant turd.
>>>>Goodwin and Rosten, are long term posters, and we are all having
>>>>a nice COLA argument over tactics.
>>>>
>>>>Comments like yours, will just get *you* killfiled.
>>> Oh no, that would be a complete DISASTER.
>>If you actually knew what a killfile was, id buy that sincerity.
> You're right. I really wish I knew what a killfile was. I really do.
> Could someone please explain?
Why dont you impress everyone AND DO A FUCKING WEBSEARCH.
Or better yet, READ THE GODDAMN INSTRUCTIONS THAT CAME WITH AGENT.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:03:44 +0100
>> >> >> Ha! I bet all users have had to re-install windows at least once
>> >> >> or fight the system installing new hardware or software.
>>
>> >> >True. Win95 on 31 floppy disks, darn.
>>
>> >> I wonder how many you'd need for 2K
>>
>> >Roughly 250, I believe.
>>
>> Fuck me. It'd be quicker to write the OS yourself.
>
> Really? You must be able to type *really* fast.
I once saw an original NT3.5.1 box with all the original floppies.
Blimey, I feel sorry for the poor sod who had to install that lot.
-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 pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:57:39 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 30 May 2001 14:24:32 GMT, Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've seen some rather good, although 'unofficial' explanations about the XP
>abbreviation in
> Windows XP. Let's try to collect them in this thread. Anybody, who has other good
>idead, please
> post them here!
eXterminate Piracy (or so M$ would like us to believe).
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Ian Pegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 20:10:23 +0100
I'm kind of new to Linux, I like what I see so far - my only reservation is
leaving apps like Dreamweaver and Photoshop behind. You say win4lin works
well? how does this compare to vmware. What's the performance like?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesse F. Hughes)
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:13:03 GMT
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 17:22:28 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesse F. Hughes)) wrote:
>
> >drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> >Consequently, murder/suicide is not a crime. After all, if I kill
> >> >myself after offing whoever is annoying me, I will not be convicted.
> >> >
> >> >Brilliant. No convictions, no crimes.
> >> >
> >> >I'm not entering the debate here, but that kind of tortured reasoning
> >> >deserves comment. Clearly, some *crimes* go unsolved (or unpunished),
> >> >but no one has any doubt that a crime has been committed.
>
> >> Well, that's relevant.
>
> >It looks relevant to me. If we look back at the quotes above, we see
> >that you were denying that there is a difference between convictions
> >and number of crimes reported.
>
> Yet again, you are completely incorrect. I was merely stating you
> cannot call someone a criminal unless they have been convicted as
> such. You cannot consider a reported crime a crime without a
> conviction.
My last word on the subject, since it is quite off-topic here. A
crime is a violation of the law. A violation of the law may occur
without a conviction. A violation of the law may be reported without
a subsequent conviction. I offered an example of that, using the
premise that the violator went unconvicted because of his own death,
but it is obvious that there are a huge number of crimes for which
there is no subsequent conviction.
Just for clarity, are you suggesting that if I kill Joe and then
myself, that Joe's death was not the result of a crime, on the grounds
that no one was convicted? It is a curious claim, but I suppose that
if you agree, then you are at least consistent with your terminology.
In that case, you're using the word differently than I am and the
result is a somewhat dull argument of semantics. I could offer
dictionary definitions supporting that my usage is common, to which
you could respond (wrongly, in my opinion) that unless a conviction
occurs, there is no violation of law. I won't engage in that kind of
argument without resolution.
I will agree that the number of reported crimes is not the same as the
number of actual crimes, and that the latter figure is not something
we can count. Similarly, the number of convictions is not the number
of actual crimes, of course, and one could ask which of the two
measurable figures (reported crimes or convictions) is closer to the
figure of real interest (actual crimes). But, that's not what your
response was.
> Stop talking out of your arse, and maybe we'll begin to take you
> seriously.
Oh, well, that is my deepest dream and desire. I wish for nothing
more than the respect and admiration from you. Please, sir, take me
seriously.
--
Jesse Hughes
"It's a dangerous place. It's a sacred place. They're going to live
as the Aborigines did." -Survivor producer Mark Burnett on the Outback
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:20:17 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <F2%R6.16166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
wrote:
> >I think Ballmer has a point. It seems evident to me that if government
funds
> >are used to support software research, the results of that research
should
> >be, in most cases, public domain. Ballmer's contention is that the GNU
> >license restricts the use of software, so GNU software isn't really
public
> >domain.
>
> Incorrect. The GPL license is the ONLY license which should be used
> on all government projects. We don't pay GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS just
> so companies like MICROSOFT CAN POCKET THE DEVELOPMENT MONEY AND
> COPYRIGHT IT FOR THEIR OWN PROFITS.
Charlie. Grow a brain. It's not just Microsoft that can't use GPL'd
software. Projects like FreeBSD can't use it either, nor OpenBSD, or NetBSD
or even the X11 Projects.
Government funded research should be useable by all US citizens. Period.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:21:43 +0100
>> >> This puts the nail in the coffin of any arguments you might come up
>> >> with
>> >> *against* you being a common troll.
>> >
>> > Besides, I fail to see how you jump from what I wrote to your unusual
>> > conclusion.
>>
>> So what reason do you have for posting it?
>
> Posting what? Either article? There's so much bleating about IIS, I
> thought one about SourceForge/Apache would be interesting for a change.
> So, how do you leap to your conclusion, then?
Er, Apache wasn't hacked, but the server it was residing on was
compromised by a different route. Compare this to all the defacements
that happen as a result of IIs being hacked.
Are you clever enough to spot the difference?
Anyway, it seems to me like you're trolling because you (yet again)
qouted something in a certain way in order to completely distort its
meaning.
There you go: I didn't even have to go and look up evidence for you doing
this because i knew you'd do it again pretty soon. Now I have posted
*evidence* it is your turn to "shut up" as you so kindly put it.
Your turn.
-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 pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:22:01 -0500
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike wrote:
> >
> > Irrational paranoid-delusional rantings snipped.
> >
> > > --
> > > Charlie
> > > -------
> >
> > Sorry, there was nothing left.
> >
> > -- Mike --
>
> What is so irrational about wanting tax funded software research to be
> available to the whole community ? The fact is the the GPL does not
> prevent companies making money off of it. It ONLY stipulates that those
> companies can't keep their source code extensions closed to *IT'S*
> customers.
The problem is that it doesn't make it available to be used by the whole
community. It only makes it available to be used by GPL'd communities.
> Therefore, if you license under the GPL, the IP and implementation of
> the research becomes transparent. The likes of M$, who can afford to do
> so, should make a clean room implementation using just the ideas. Then
> they are free to do whatever they like. I find this perfectly rational.
> Why should some large company get a free product which they can simply
> add eye candy and sell (while closing the source for their users)?
Because the money used to develop it came from tax dollars, part of which
was paid for by the corporation.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:26:36 -0500
"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike wrote:
>
> > I think Ballmer has a point. It seems evident to me that if government
funds
> > are used to support software research, the results of that research
should
> > be, in most cases, public domain. Ballmer's contention is that the GNU
> > license restricts the use of software, so GNU software isn't really
public
> > domain.
> >
> > So, the question is, why shouldn't government funded software
development be
> > public domain?
>
> The problem with public domain software
> is that commercial companies can incorporate
> parts of it in their own code, patent it,
> then the public domain code becomes illegal
> to redistribute.
>
> Once you put code in the public domain,
> anyone can do whatever they want with it
> by definition, including assigning themselves
> the copyright, patenting the code, and denying
> the public the right to use that code later.
Not true. You can't patent code, you can only copyright it. You can patent
algorithms, but the public domain code is a clear example of prior art.
Before you make such statements, you should understand what you're talking
about.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:28:08 GMT
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:F69S6.61334$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Again I say unto you, what you say here is utter
> > boolshit. Apart from the exact keystroke or
> > mouse sequences, I've not found anything in
> > Windows functionality that UNIX lacks.
> > But, hey, I've still got a couple more decades
> > of computer experience to come, don't I!
>
> I think you misunderstood me; I am talking
> about the featureset used by application
> developers.
>
> For instance, Unix has no equivalent of
> MS's "Windows Scripting Host" or
> Apple's "Open Scripting Architecture".
>
> [snip]
>
>
You keep saying this. I've looked and looked and I cannot find anything
special about "Windows Scripting Host." I don't know anything about Apple's
OSA, so I can't comment there.
WSH is little more than a ragged attempt to shore up one of Windows'
weaknesses -- poor scripting support. This, of course, is one of the giant
strengths of Unix/Linux.
With WSH, Windows finally moves beyond DOS BATch files, and this is the big
technical innovation you've been crowing about?
Linux has never been so primitive.
--
Weevil
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:28:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 19 May 2001 00:04:18 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Snaggler wrote:
>>
>> On 18 May 2001 20:24:12 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:9duli0$rlp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If your time is worth nothing, install Linux.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If both your time and money are worth nothing,
>> >> >> then install Microsoft.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am convinced there is almost no way you attend oxford -
>> >> > unless your parents paid off admissions...
>> >>
[snip for brevity]
>So that's where Beavis and Butthead had gone to! :-)
Well, there goes the thread. :-P Several responses come to mind,
some pithy, some elegant, most of the notion that "anytime a thread
devolves to ad homs, that's probably the time to Godwinize [*] it and
move on".
I could see some trifurcation of the market, here. On the one
side, there's Microsoft. Microsoft's tools are elegant (visually
speaking), shiny (ditto), and total crap (from an engineering/usage
standpoint), but they have, apparently, a very competent marketing
department (otherwise, how would we all "know" that Win2k can achieve
the much-balleyhooed [by guess who?] "5 9's") and a reasonably
competent software development group (otherwise they'd have gone out
of business a long time ago).
On the other wide, there are the hard-core -- or maybe soft-core --
Linux aficionados, those who love Linux for its essence (never
mind doing productive work on it -- although one can do quite a
bit of that, too), as opposed to its tools. This side isn't as bad
as the Microsoft zealots, as they can at least put up reasonable
arguments. :-) (OK, so I'm slightly biased. But you try to futz
with InternetXXXX and HttpDoThat without going totally bonkers... :-) )
And squarely in the middle, more or less, are the rest of us.
Personally, I (and presumably many others) don't really give a damn
as to what OS is underneath me, as long as:
- it does what I expect,
- it supports the applications that I'm expected to/want to run
(this includes games, editors, mailers, browsers, etc.)
- it doesn't crash, taking half a day's work with it, at least,
not too often,
- and it's not too expensive.
In my case, I also do development work on Linux. A good chunk of this
is basically for my own amusement (for example, I'm writing a widget
system -- never mind that there are so many out there already, from the
extremely primitive and classical Athena to the state-of-the-art
Gnome/Gtk and KDE/QT offerings; other things I'm toying with are 3-D
coordinate management and rendering (POVRAY, however, is already there),
and various other things). However, some of it is actually useful;
I work with Tomcat at work, for example. Granted, it's in Java so it
could sit just about anywhere, but it definitely gets the job done,
at least until it is replaced by something better, company-wide.
I could just as easily work with FreeBSD, if I bothered to. Or
even BeOS, as long as I can compile things with X include files.
(Unfortunately, BeOS is proprietary.)
I also do development work on NT -- although I can't say I do anything
horribly esoteric (I avoid COM/DCOM/COM+/ActiveX/ADO, for example,
although I've tinkered with some of them in the past).
Middle-of-the-road is not a bad place to be, if one has a motorcar
and is moving. But beware getting run over. :-)
>
>--
>V
[*] the idea is similar to cauterization, which, among other things,
stops the bleeding and sterilizes the wound :-). Of course, I'm
referring to the somewhat-legendary-if-rather-useless Godwin,
who apparently maintained that calling one's opponent a Nazi
basically stopped a thread.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 33d:18h:06m actually running Linux.
[select one]
We are all naked underneath our clothes.
Linux. When Microsoft isn't enough anymore.
Are you still here?
A man and his roomie walked into a bar...."Ouch", they said.
This is a .sig.
Linux. When Microsoft isn't enough anymore.
You were expecting something relevant down here?
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:29:26 -0500
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html
>
> "The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software,
> you have to make the rest of your software open source....Linux is not
> in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an
> intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way
> that the license works."
>
> Classic FUD. OK, this is true if "use" means "use the source code in
> another product." It's not true if "use" means "run the compiled
> software," an act which the GPL specifically says is unrestricted.
It's unrestricted if you get ahold of it. You have to get your hands on the
GPL'd software to be able to do it.
The GPL only gives you rights to the software you have in your posession, it
doesn't give you rights to someone eleses software. You can't demand they
give you their GPL'd software. If you have the software, you can demand the
source, but that's a different argument.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonas Due Vesterheden)
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:28:01 GMT
In article <9fbdk1$5mf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Pegel wrote:
> I'm kind of new to Linux, I like what I see so far - my only reservation is
> leaving apps like Dreamweaver and Photoshop behind. You say win4lin works
> well? how does this compare to vmware. What's the performance like?
Much better than VMware, I think. You might want to try Photoshop and
Dreamweaver in Wine (http://www.winehq.com) before installing Win4Lin.
Have you tried the alternatives to these programs? Try and browse around
a little on http://www.freshmeat.net , and see if you find any programs
you like.
Regards Jonas
--
Have you saved your rainforest today?
- http://www.therainforestsite.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 web server probing port 137???
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:35:16 -0500
"Craig Gullixson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9f90j6$21nb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, WesTralia
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >Why on Earth does the Stats package that comes with Windows 2000
> >probe port 137 of a visitors machine when visiting a website that
> >is running Windows 2000???
> >
> >I was told that it is for tracking visitors. I don't understand
> >what probing port 137 that has no demon running has to do with
> >"tracking visitors."
> >
> >Any insight would be helpful.
>
> Port 137 is used for NETBIOS Name Service. What that has to do with
> "tracking visitors" is beyond me. I could perhaps see a possibility
> of big brother trying to keep track of things, although I have no
> basis to say that this is the case.
Rather, it's likely trying to authenticate the user.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:37:47 -0500
"Rob Barris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <loTR6.4841$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, unicat wrote:
> > >
> > > With XP starting at $329 for the upgrade and $580 for
> > > the base, do you realize that it will now cost a company
> > > of 550 computer users a whopping 2.5 million dollars to
> > > upgrade their fleet!
> >
> > Where do you get those figures?
> >
> > MS hasn't released pricing on XP yet, and those prices are much higher
> > than
> > the current Win2k pricing (which was the same as the NT4 pricing before
> > it).
>
> I'm sure he's referring to Office XP. Pricing was shown on CNBC on
> 5/31/01 - I thought it was $239 for upgrade, $479 for new.
Ahh.. perhaps. And, as usual, Charlie exagerates to make his point.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
