Linux-Advocacy Digest #960, Volume #34 Mon, 4 Jun 01 16:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications ("wgaf")
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: UI Importance ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Chicken and egg problem ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: UI Importance ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Kernel comparisions ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: Chicken and egg problem ("Mark Weaver")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 15:00:20 -0400
chrisv wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >chrisv wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Sorry, but there's many non-literal forms of effective communication.
> >> >> Morons who simply pretend not to understand are not helpful.
> >> >
> >> >Translation: I, chrisv, am unable to communicate in a clear, effective manner.
> >>
> >> Translation: I, Aaron Kookis, admit defeat to chrisv AGAIN. As
> >> chrisv is OBVIOUSLY correct.
> >>
> >> Tell us again, Kookis, how it's not possible to communicate in a
> >> clear, effective manner without being perfectly literal. LOL!
> >
> >you're the one making the claim, not me
>
> Wrong again, Kook. It was you claimed you didn't understand my
> meaning because I wasn't literal enough, when in fact my meaning was
> quite clear. How many times must you lose to me? (I know, you never
> have, right? LOL!)
Confusing the audience with Nonsense and Double-talk is not victory.
Hope that helps.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Date: 04 Jun 2001 15:12:49 -0400
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, how am I suppose to read the GPL in this regard?
> I'm spesifically talking about section 3, sub section B.
The key words are at the beginning of section 3. I'll capitalize them
for emphasis:
3. You MAY copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do ONE of the following:
MAY: You are being granted permission to copy/distribute. You are not
being obligated to do so.
ONE: You need only meet one of the requirements 3a, 3b or 3c. Most
people will want to just do 3a, i.e. distribute sources alongside any
binaries. In case there's ever a good reason not to just do 3a, you
have 3b to fall back on (written offer). Even though you're allowed to
recoup your costs, 3b sounds like a pain to me; I would always want to
just do 3a.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
I rarely read mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "wgaf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 19:18:47 GMT
"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-6177688-0.html?t
ag=ltnc
> Hey Microsoft. A personal computer is not a telephone. It is a
> computing device. Computing and communications can be put into the
> same box, but they remain two distinct things. If you weld a
> telephone into a car, does it become a communications device? Trying
> to rename computers is not going to solve your antitrust problem.
> Please get a clue and then give us a real operating system.
> Thank-you,
> LShaping
Interesting.... a clueless person is giving advice to an allegedly clueless
corporation. Your knowledge level seems to reside somewhere at the brick
level....
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 21:24:32 +0100
> news:9fg8ff$3sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > I'm sure the brits will have some concocted story about how they
>> >> > REALLY invented the Internet first and Europe had had the WWW
>> >> > years before the FTP rfc was even submitted.
>>
>> Chad, tell me, do you know the difference between FTP and HTTP? Did you
>> also know that the WWW started in CERN (in europe)?
>
> Jesus Christ, don't you people know how to read, let alone take a joke?
The trouble is, with someone like you who makes wild, idiotic claims in
all seriousness, it is hard to tell when you are joking rather than
making another wild, idiotic claim.
> I was citing the FTP reference as a time frame, not because it had
> anything to do with HTTP.
> YOU do know that the FTP rfc was submitted long before the HTTP RFC,
> right?
Yes.
You do know that you're on another long, pointless rant about nothing in
particular, right?
-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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 21:26:08 +0100
> Case in point. :-) :-) :-) Been there, done that, wore the S-Thirt. :-)
>
> (Thank goodness for the Backspace key.)
^^^^^^^^^
Obviously, you're *not* a real programmer.
-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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicken and egg problem
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:28:08 -0500
"Gerald Meazell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<9ffak1$64t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$117
> >
> > Read it, very good article about how to get people to use new platforms.
>
> According to this guy's logic, everyone should have moved to OS/2 by mid
'93.
> After all, it ran most of the existing software, hell, it even could run
C/PM
> programs **unchanged** and it preceeded Win95 by three years. So, why did
that
> not happen? IBM's botched marketing or an evil plot by Microsoft?
Whatever it
> was the fact it did not happen trashes the whole point of the argument.
Not really. OS/2 had many problems that Microsoft successfully solved. The
biggest one was the developer issue. MS successfully got developers on
board to Win32 fairly shortly after the release of Win95, IBM was still
pulling teeth to get people to develop native 32 bit apps.
IBM saw no need to court developers, and in fact treated it as some kind of
priviledge to develop for OS/2. The OS/2 SDK was prohibitively expensive
and You had to buy IBM's monstrous documentation set which, when stacked up
was about 5 feet high in boxes with 5-10 books each. IBM eventually got
stuff put on CD-ROM, but it took forever.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 21:29:05 +0100
>> You still have to select the individual pictures though, which is a
>> long and tedious process. Basically, selecting some pictures based on
>> content out of 100s is a long tedious process.
>
> Selecting some pictures based on names out of 100s is much more tedious.
> Especially when the names: A> has no pattern. B> doesn't have a clear
> name.
Well, I;d go as far as to say that if they had no pattern and unclear
names, then it would be all but impossible with the command line only.
-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: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:33:26 -0500
"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:SaOS6.23$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <mTZR6.38033$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html:
> >
> >Q: Do you view Linux and the open-source movement as a threat to
Microsoft?
> >
> >A: Yeah. It's good competition. It will force us to be innovative. It
will
> >force us to justify the prices and value that we deliver. And that's only
> >healthy. The only thing we have a problem with is when the government
funds
> >open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available
> >to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies. The
way
> >the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to
> >make the rest of your software open source. If the government wants to
put
> >something in the public domain, it should. 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.
> >
> >(end quote)
> >
> >You couldn't say anything more ridiculous if you tried.
> >
> >The Govt. sends millions (at least) to MS every year for shrinkwrapped
> >software, funding the development of code that is proprietary MS
> >property. But that doesn't seem to bother Ballmer quite so much.
>
> Another irony is that MS pays no federal income tax at all by exploiting
> various loopholes.
>
>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/10/09
/MN3707.DTL
Income tax is not the only form of tax.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 21:35:39 +0100
In article <3b1bc682$0$94306$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fg8q5$453$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Sounds like Chad on comp.security.ssh :-)
>>
>> Heh, another fool who can't admit when he's completely wrong.
>
> Right... even though no one has yet come up with any GOOD reason why the
> creators of SSH themselves claim that SSH1 has security holes other than
> "Well, they just want to sell SSH2" even though SSH2 is free.
That's a pretty good reason for saying it. Unless you have a realy good
reason ehy it isn't a good reason.
>> > Yep, I'm glad I was killfiled by all the close-minded morons who
>> > refuse to admit that there are serious security issues with SSH =)
>>
>> What serious issues are there with SSH2?
>
> We weren't talking with SSH2, we were talking about SSH1 and why OpenSSH
> continues to ship the "flawed" SSH1 product.
>
> Get with the program before you start calling other people fools.
Oh and by the way, why does MS ship telnet client and server, that's far
more flawed then SSH1, but they still ship it. Guess they must be a real
bunch of bozos.
> -c
--
(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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel comparisions
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 21:40:06 +0100
> What is mmap, exactly? You can access partitions & harddisks directly in
> NT (given that you've the permissions) using \Devide\PhysicalDisk# or
> something like that.
MMAP maps files in to memory for very high speed access. You can also
read physical devices in UNIX too, ed /dev/hda
Ad usual, the names are rather terser :-) but if you don't know what they
mean, you *really* shouldn't be messing with them. (Hey, who doesn't like
dumping random data to random devices once in a while)
-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: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:43:19 -0500
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Well the articles are good. He seems like a good pragmatic programmer.
> However, I am not sure if being your typical Seattle M$ programmer would
> be my cup of tea:
> 1) Pay not brilliant - yes you must bet on the ever increasing stock
> (why M$ employees are obsessed with stock tickers I guess).
People i've talked to has said that pay is only crap at first, it increases
by quite a bit once you get seniority.
> 2) No family if you want to be in the "in crowd". Family takes away from
> productive hours. Family is bad. Life outside M$ is bad. Work ( observe
> the picture in your head of Gates with a whip and a few horns)
This is also untrue. Many microsofties seem to be involved in lots of
non-worktime events. Mike Blaczak raced motorcycles, David Kruglinski was
involved in chamionship skydiving (and died in the process), etc..
> 3) Work anytime you want. Work a "normal" week and you won't get
> anywhere. Meet dealings or you're canned or ignored.
This is common in successful programming environments.
> 4) You have to do what marketing tells you. (Have a look at his article
> about .net and the confusion INSIDE microsoft as to what it is and what
> the strategy means. I am glad that I am not being stupid when I say that
> I really don't "get it" )
Yet you get Sun's effort?
> 5) You work to produce the best revenue rather than the best product.
> For example the case you site about backwards compatibility. That really
> did harm for their credibility and system stability. These kinds of
> foolish actions: like the hardly believable SimCity hook, just make me
> wonder what a pile of crap windows can be. It removes a large amount of
> respect. Have a look at the other of his articles about how one
> programmer simple inserted a bug to save "time" so that he could say a
> feature was complete to meet deadlines.
This is why Windows is successful though. Clearly backwards compatibility
is more important to customers, and customers are what make you successful.
> 6) Protect you arse. There will be another division or another
> programmer who would like to eat you for dinner. You know you have to be
> the best you can because there are plenty of little Bill's to take your
> place.
What's wrong with that?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in
Date: 4 Jun 2001 19:45:31 GMT
Rotten168 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: drsquare wrote:
: >
: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:21:24 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
: > (Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
: >
: > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
: >
: > >> Considering that X predates the Logitech trackball by a full decade,
: > >> I suggest you ask Logitech why they are selling a trackball that is
: > >> incompatible with X.
: >
: > >*sigh* Why not ask X why they're still stuck in 1990? Either way, if
: >
: > Why should X change just because a few people seem to find it too
: > difficult to press the left and right buttons at the same time?
: >
: > >Linux wants to remain competitive on the desktop it will have to do
: > >better than this. I read an article a while back on how each OS should
: > >just stick to their respective markets, and we'd all be better. Windows
: > >should stick to the desktop (where it does a better job than Linux), and
: > >UNIXens should stick to servers, workstations, routers, ... all the
: > >industrial-strength stuff.
: >
: > What, you're saying normal users shouldn't be given the option of a
: > stable operating system?
: Well... no I'm not saying that, but Windows is easier on the eyes, it's
What does this mean? Probably a matter of opinion. I do most work from
cli b/c I can't stand look at text on a graphics screen all day. Better
to have no distracting menus and windows and a black backround. Much easier
on these eyes.
: more user-friendly (whatever that means nowadays), it's got a faster
: redraw rate than Linux. It's easier to do do "stuff" with. The tradeoff
I think this has more to do w/ graphics hardware than it does os.
: is that it locks up every few uses or so.
Linux locks up, too. When it does, developers come out and admit the bug, tell
people _why_ it happened (they have the source), and come up with a prompt fix.
I've heard of troubles w/ windows that were fixed in next upgrade which you
have to buy.
: I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it's just not a good desktop OS,
I use it on my desktop.
: delivering more power (and, yes, stability) than the average user needs
: and sacrificing speed, ease of use, and aesthetics.
I think linux is faster for my uses.
: Different tools for different jobs... that's my mission in this
: newsgroup.
I agree. Windows works well for people who like to pay, and for those who
all ready started out with windows. I learned dos first, then mac, then
linux. I'm only learning windows now (I'm working on a samba server).
There are many things I like about windows. I thought that it was easy to get
networking up once I read a couple of how-tos (not kidding), but I'm having
inexplicable troubles with a few windows machines, and I can't figure out why.
The windows-only people are looking to me for help. :)
Linux took more work to set up, but once I did, I understood why I was doing
in each step of the set-up and this helped me when it was time to learn how to
do it the windows way. I wish I could figure out how to get those two pcs on
network. One pc, will _never_ be put on the network b/c as we installed the
second network card, it destoryed use of the whole pc. Yes, a driver
we installed the recommended point+click way completely destroyed whole
os fuctionality. It started crashing CONSTANTLY. When we needed driver for
card, I found 20 web sites for linux, none for windows. A few hours later,
I did find the driver. It was on the win 95 cd, but win 95 did not recognize
card. So basically, it depends on which is easier to set up.
If one can't set it up at all, then there is no ease of use issue. I set up
two ethernet cards on my linux box and it works fine. Probably b/c there's
less automagic which misconfigures stuff, as well as no dll hell.
Fred
------------------------------
From: "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicken and egg problem
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 19:46:58 GMT
"Gerald Meazell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<9ffak1$64t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$117
> >
> > Read it, very good article about how to get people to use new platforms.
> >
>
>
> According to this guy's logic, everyone should have moved to OS/2 by mid
'93.
> After all, it ran most of the existing software, hell, it even could run
C/PM
> programs **unchanged** and it preceeded Win95 by three years. So, why did
that
> not happen? IBM's botched marketing or an evil plot by Microsoft?
Whatever it
> was the fact it did not happen trashes the whole point of the argument.
IBM blew OS/2 in interesting ways. Originally, when it was an MS-only
product, it was going to be a 16-bit protected mode version of the Windows
API and GUI on top of a real, multitasking OS. The original promise from MS
was if you wrote you apps to the Windows 2.x API, that they would port
trivially to OS/2. However, IBM got into the picture and insisted on
'rationalizing' the Windows API. They changed names, added and re-arranged
parameters, flipped the screen upside down (the default 0,0 origin was
bottom-left, not top-left). The result? At the time OS/2 came out, Windows
was being sold mostly as a runtime system, but there already *were*
significant Windows apps (e.g. Pagemaker) on the market. IBM insisted on
enough changes that the porting job from the 16-bit Windows API to the OS/2
API was enough of a PITA that they didn't automatically inherit all the
Windows apps. Also, the memory requirements of OS/2 were prohibitive for
low-cost machines. While IBM was waiting for OS/2 to take off, Microsoft
came out first with Windows 386 (which took advantage of 386 virtual
machines and was a much better platform for DOS apps than OS/2 1.x) and then
Windows 3.0--both of which ran in half the memory that OS/2 required. More
important, porting Windows 2.x apps to Windows 3.0 was indeed very
simple--mostly just a recompile. That was the beginning of the end for OS/2
as a mass-market OS. At first IBM and Microsoft had some joint position
that low memory machines should run Windows and others should run OS/2, but
Windows 3.0 vastly outsold OS/2 and eventually the messy divorce came. As
for backward compatibility, the original 286 version of OS/2 had a very
brain-damaged 'compatibility box' that could run just one DOS app at a time
and no support for Windows apps. IBM didn't add runtime support for 16-bit
Windows apps until later (when, in retrospect, it was already too
late--Windows made the transition to 32-bit shortly thereafter and OS/2
never supported 32-bit Windows apps).
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in
Date: 4 Jun 2001 19:48:15 GMT
: Windows 98' fault, because my experiences with Linux & printing are
: worse than what my experiences were with Windows. I once tried to print
: the man pages for tin, I didn't realize that they were like 50 pages
: long! I cancelled the job using the lp kill command (I forget what it's
: called exactly), but the printer continued printing after I rebooted.
I usually go to printer and press 'cancel' button.
: So I've had a different experience under Linux printing.
Me too. I'm using 3 oses to print to an appletalk printer. Works the way
each os expects it to. All w/ one linux box.
Fred
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:49:09 -0500
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> >No, retail boxed sets also include installation support.
> >>
> >> Hmm ... knee-jerk responses to key phrases ... no understanding of
> >> context ... no understanding of argument. Has someone replaced Erik
> >> with an Eliza program?
> >>
> >> Hello, Erik, how are you feeling?
> >
> >I'm not sure I understand what you are implying. You suggest that the
> >cost of the boxed set only covers cost of media and manual, which it
> >does not.
>
> You're confusing cost with price. The retail price of a boxed set may
> include installation support, but cost of a boxed set only includes the
> media and the manual. The difference between the price and the cost is the
> gross margin.
Oh, bullshit. We're talking about the cost to the consumer, not the cost to
the manufacturer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in
Date: 4 Jun 2001 19:50:49 GMT
: > They already DO have that option. It's called Windows2000 and soon to be
: > Windows XP. Every Linux/Xwindows combination I've ever seen is less stable
: > than Windows 95. I just had the pleasure of setting a system up yesterday.
: > The first question the guy asked me today was "How do I recover from a
: > frozen mouse cursor without just hitting the power switch."
Sure, just drop into cli and kill X. I don't recall ever having X crash and
bring down the whole system w/ linux. I'm sure that win 2k has a similar nice
I haven't learned it yet, but I'm interested.
Fred
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:03:47 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fgnuc$d6v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3b1bc682$0$94306$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9fg8q5$453$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Sounds like Chad on comp.security.ssh :-)
> >>
> >> Heh, another fool who can't admit when he's completely wrong.
> >
> > Right... even though no one has yet come up with any GOOD reason why the
> > creators of SSH themselves claim that SSH1 has security holes other than
> > "Well, they just want to sell SSH2" even though SSH2 is free.
>
> That's a pretty good reason for saying it. Unless you have a realy good
> reason ehy it isn't a good reason.
>
> >> > Yep, I'm glad I was killfiled by all the close-minded morons who
> >> > refuse to admit that there are serious security issues with SSH =)
> >>
> >> What serious issues are there with SSH2?
> >
> > We weren't talking with SSH2, we were talking about SSH1 and why OpenSSH
> > continues to ship the "flawed" SSH1 product.
> >
> > Get with the program before you start calling other people fools.
>
> Oh and by the way, why does MS ship telnet client and server, that's far
> more flawed then SSH1, but they still ship it. Guess they must be a real
> bunch of bozos.
That's irrelevant at this point, especially since you guys continually
claim MS has no concept of security. What I'm asking is, since OSS people
generally consider themselves gods of security and that OSS is far superior,
why do they ship a "flawed" product when they know it to be such?
-c
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
