Linux-Advocacy Digest #984, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Re: Chicken and egg problem ("Mark Weaver")
Re: Chicken and egg problem ("Mark Weaver")
Re: Windows advocate of the year. (Michael Vester)
Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again) (flatfish+++)
Re: UI Importance ("Robert Morelli")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("JS \\
PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:58:46 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 30 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 26 May 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> >MS has not claimed that XP is mostly all new code, nor have they said
>NT4
>> >> >was mostly all new code. Of course NT 3.1 was, and Win2k was a major
>> >> >overhaul, but XP is a point release (5.1) and not a major rewrite.
>> >>
>> >> <*Sniff*> <*Sniff*>
>> >>
>> >> What's that smell? It smells like...
>> >>
>> >> Horseshit.
>> >>
>> >> MS touted the "massive overhaul" bullshit for every version of Windows
>> >> they've shoveled onto the market. Just because MS redacted their press
>> >> doesn't mean they didn't make the claim, Erik.
>> >
>> >They didn't make the claim. Please prove it. Otherwise, Shut the fuck up.
>>
>> They make that claim when they give it an entirely new name and market
>> it as a major rewrite. Putz.
>
>Oh, I see. So Progeny is an entirely new rewrite of Linux because it has a
>new name. I get it.
>
>Stop saying such ludicrous BS.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Note to self, Erik?
Go ask whoever produces Progeny if their rewrite is Linux. You might
get a debate, but you won't get a denial. Ask anyone if they are
confused about the relationship.
You can pretend to be confused and miss the point, Erik, but we know it
doesn't really do any good. You can deny reality, but you can't change
it by doing so. Microsoft's versioning is nothing but ludicrous BS, at
best, if not simply a series of scams and lies. This is simply not the
case anywhere else.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:58:47 GMT
Said Quantum Leaper in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 27 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> I don't think any of the sock puppets have ever paid for W2K. They get
>> it for free, and then babble on about how great it is. Guffaw.
>>
>Sorry turkey, me and 5999 other people got Windows 2K for FREE from
>Microsoft... The problem with Linux is it doesn't support my DVD, and that
>makes it unusable to me...
Nice catch; you almost ended up making the entirely UNLIMITED free
access to Linux (something W2K becomes a pitiful alternative when
considering) too obvious. The use of DVD support was slick.
Ultimately, I think DVD support on a PC is really pretty stupid.
Computers SUCK as DVD players, and CD-ROM is still the de facto
standard. If you've got money to burn on stupid toys, it might be worth
it. But, only if you got the W2K for free, obviously.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:58:48 GMT
Said Quantum Leaper in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 28 May 2001
[...]
>> That is not a "Linux" problem. The DVD communitty will not allow open
>> source or free versions of the DVD drivers, and they wont produce
>> commercial drivers.
>>
>I know that, and that the reason I won't switch, I would say it is a Linux
>problem.
Sounds more like your problem. "Linux" is an OS; the only problems it
has are technical glitches or bugs. As pointed out, the lack of DVD
support is neither.
>Since the drivers would have to be closed source and distributed
>as binary only. Something need to be done about it or you will lose alot
>of new users, since just about every new computer comes with a DVD drive.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
>BTW it not the DVD commuity problem but a problem with the film industry.
That is part of "the DVD community" with the problem, certainly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:58:51 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 29 May 2001 09:44:07
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> I hope you're not talking about ICS. Chad Meyers tried to tell us that ICS
>> in Win 2K Pro could do this too. Check out this from my Win2K Pro
>> Resource Kit:
>
>It's Myers, jerk, get it right.
Okay, Myers, jerk. Is that like a title, or an occupation?
>> "Do not enable ICS in an existing network that has DNS servers, gateways,
>> DHCP servers, or computers configured with static IP addresses.
>> If your Windows 2000 Professional-based computer is in a network
>> where one or more of these conditions exist, you MUST use
>> Windows 2000 Server network address translation."
>
>Yes, because it's a whole solution. It does DNS pass-through, DHCP, and
>routing.
Yes, because it's monopoly crapware. It does violations of both Section
1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Meanwhile, all of the other "whole solutions" (bog-standard Unix box)
does all of those, WITHOUT requiring some pathetic "whole solution" with
no technical merit or value.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:58:52 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 29 May 2001 23:49:03
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >Then I shall call you Chad Everett, illiterate, since you have a basic
>> >problem parsing English sentence structure.
>>
>> You forgot this part:
>>
>> From the Windows 2000 Pro Resource Kit:
>>
>> "Do not enable ICS in an existing network that has DNS servers, gateways,
>> DHCP servers, or computers configured with static IP addresses.
>> If your Windows 2000 Professional-based computer is in a network
>> where one or more of these conditions exist, you MUST use
>> Windows 2000 Server network address translation."
>
>Yes, and?
>
>Win2K Pro is a workstation. If you want full server technology, then use
>Server.
A workstation that doesn't work on a network that isn't all Windows?
How *pathetic*. You have the balls to call that a "_work_station"? It
sounds like an incredibly overpriced, disfunctional 'terminal' kind of
thing. Not a workstation at all, as the industry defines it.
>There are other free NAT apps, as well as DHCP and DNS server for Win2K
>Pro. If you want all that and don't want it to act as the main server,
>then just download the stuff seperately.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
>Jesus
No, Bill Gates.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:58:50 GMT
Said Philip Nicholls in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 28 May 2001
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2001 22:51:29 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> With Linux, once you go off the beaten path, you're in the ghetto.
>>
>> You mean that /you/ are in the ghetto. The rest of us can customize
>> Linux just fine.
>
>I found myself in the ghetto more than once. I think most people who lack
>serious computer experience will find themselves in the ghetto quickly,
>will give up and return to windows. [...]
So does Microsoft. So did Judge Jackson.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:07:56 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "chrisv"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >
>> >>But when you bow, make sure you're _facing_ him. Don't want to bend
>> >>over with your back to him, after all. Might be more than he can
>> >>resist.
>> >
>> > I have a theory, and I'm sure I'm not alone, that the people who claim
>> > to be the most repelled by certain activities, are the people with inner
>> > conflicts regarding these same activities.
>>
>> I believe it's a quite common theory: those that have an inner conflict
>> have most to fear.
Aaron> The unstated premise here is that I have an "inner conflict", which is
Aaron> false, as I will demonstrate in the next paragraph:
Your following paragraph proves the reverse. That you think gays
present a clear and present danger is evidence of your irrationality
on the subject. Normal people do not feel threatened by homosexuality.
Aaron> If I object to, and repelled by, someone who dumps poison in the food of
Aaron> other people sitting at the table, is that supposed to indicate that I
Aaron> have some "inner conflict" or is it my RATIONAL recognition that this
Aaron> person is a clear and present danger to EVERYBODY he comes into contact with.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicken and egg problem
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:29:14 GMT
"Gerald Meazell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <johnbrowne> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8jRS6.6542$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Gerald Meazell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I didn't want to start a thread about why OS/2 failed to take the market.
That
> is a discussion that has been beaten to death (although it might be
instructive
> to Linux advocates). My point was that the article in question asserted
that
> all you needed to succeed from an OS standpoint was backward compatibility
> with the majority of apps. If that was true, OS/2 would have taken the
market.
> It didn't so I assert that the article has a flawed premise. If the
premise is
> flawed, does the article have any merit?
But your assertion is FALSE. The 1.x releases of OS/2 *didn't* offer good
backward compatibility. They ran *no* Windows apps and ran DOS apps in a
very limited, buggy 'compatibility box'. Furthermore, because of changes in
the API porting of Windows APPS to OS/2 PM was non-trivial. Eventually IBM
offered a 32-bit version of OS/2 that was good a running DOS apps in
separate VMs and was adequate at running 16-bit windows apps, but it still
offered no simple way to port/convert windows apps to native OS/2 PM apps.
OTOH, porting from 16-bit windows to 32-bit windows was very easy. MS also
prepared the ground by releasing Win32S (a 32-bit layer for Win 3.1). MS
made it very easy for software developers to exploit their existing source
code as they moved forward. IBM simply did not.
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicken and egg problem
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:29:15 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:f6XS6.6718$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> That's an excuse. Win95 also ran 16 bit apps just as well (better in most
> cases) than OS/2, yet Microsoft managed to get developers to start writing
> 32 bit apps fairly quickly. They know how to motivate programmers, and
that
> is what they did. IBM didn't and therefore could never crack the
> application barrier.
>
It wasn't really a question of motivation -- MS made it very easy to convert
16-bit windows apps to 32-bit, while IBM did NOT make it easy to convert
16-bit windows apps to OS/2. I remember having source code that could be
compiled for either 16 or 32 bit windows with very little in the way of
macros, ifdefs, etc.
Mark
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:03:09 -0700
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> Not all windows advocates are bad.
>
> They are capable of reasoned, rational arguments (though you might not
> believe it with the amount of drivel coming out of people like Chad
> Myers).
>
> I think we should have a Wincvocate of the year nominated (it makes a
> change from nominating trolls).
>
> I would like to nominate Ayende Rahien. If all windows advocates were
> like this, this group would be a much better place. Heck, if all Linux
> advocates were like this, he group would be a better place.
>
> -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
I nominate Flatfish. Still having problems installing Linux and complains
about the lack of studio sound mixing open source software. Some of
her/his/its postings are quite witty. Like the response to a posting,
"What does Linux need on the desktop?" Flatfish replied, "Users." That
was worthy of a chuckle. Flatfish is a wincvocate without taking it too
seriously.
I think Eric F should be disqualified. Cutting and pasting from
Microsoft's official doctrine web site does not make an advocate.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:35:30 GMT
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:02 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Please explain how, and how this would be different to windows.
setup.exe
vs
Good luck
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:50:56 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nick Condon"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Morelli wrote:
>
>>In article <9fda7d$o8l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>><don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$51 A good article
>>> about why people think so highly about UI. It's a good approach, I
>>> believe.
>>> Any comments?
>>>
>>Wouldn't it be great if people from the Linux/UNIX world had the kind of
>>common sense and competence that Windows programmers like the author of
>>this article has.
> What any of them? Just one? How about this one: A Tribute to KDE
> http://www.csh.rit.edu/~benjamin/log/e_kde.shtml
This is just a short tribute to the KDE project with no specific content
about UI design. It's not even comparable to the 9 chapter article this
thread is about.
>>I actually have strong feelings about this issue because I think the
>>neglect of UI is a serious bottleneck in the progress of Linux.
> If you're going to have strong feelings about it, you ought to try to
> keep up with current events, don't you think? Your post is straight out
> of 1995. Besides KDE, there's also Gnome. The desktop is major focus of
> open-source development (neither one of them is bound to just Linux)
> here in 2001.
I have nothing but praise for the Gnome and KDE efforts. The problem
is that they are struggling to catch up to where Microsoft, the dunces
of software world, were in 1995. Unfortunately, it's 2001.
>>Unfortunately, a lot of Linux/UNIX people are still trying to
>>understand the GUI revolution that took place 20 years ago. It's really
>>a terrible shame because the payoffs could be so tremendous. Think of
>>where we'd be today if Linux had the technology to be a decent end user
>>OS.
> Here you are confusing "important" with "important to you". As a result
> you overrate the importance of the GUI, it only means anything on the
> desktop. I work on high-end Sun clusters for living, and they don't even
> have graphics cards installed in them. All my work is accomplished on
> the command line. I do lots of scripting :-)
This statement is absurd. UI is important to everyone. UI has two
parts: 1) person talks to computer, 2) computer talks to person.
Without 1), the computer does nothing, so the computer is useless.
Without 2), the computer might do something but we never know
what, so the computer is useless. If a tree falls in the forest, and
no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound? You can have all the
clusters in the world, but if nobody ever 1) tells them what to do, and
2) hears what they have to say, they are useless.
>>Instead of confronting the challenge, UNIX people try to disparage UI
>>by spouting vague bullshit about supposedly more serious aspects of
>>programming. I have a PhD in mathematics and I don't like vague
>>bullshit, so that kind of thing pisses me off.
> Since you "don't like vague bullshit", try and show a little precision
> in your writing. The command line *is* a UI, what you are actually
> talking about is a *graphic* UI - the GUI. The term "UI" is not
> interchangable with the term "GUI", they are not the same.
I said UI because I meant UI. It happens that the GUI revolution of
1980's is the most important event in the history of the UI, and one
of the most important in software engineering in general, but in fact
I meant UI in a broad sense.
<snip>
>>Of course, there're going to be people who take this an unwarranted
>>attack on Linux. That's not my purpose. In my opinion, we ought to be
>>thinking long term. The short term battle is progressing well. Linux
>>has made incredible gains. Linux is overtaking Windows in some server
>>markets and it's knocking the wind out of MS in the embedded market.
>>But Linux can't win the whole game in the short term. The technology
>>just isn't there to knock Microsoft out on the desktop.
> I disagree. The available desktop technology is excellent. However, it
> is not enough. Nobody ever beat Microsoft through superior technology.
This is a cop out, and it's a kind of cowardice.
Let's get some things straight here:
1. It's only true that no *commercial* competitor every beat Microsoft
through superior technology.
2. OSS is mostly immune to Microsoft's usual thuggery.
3. Microsoft would love for us to fear them, but we have no reason to
fear them. They have reason to fear us.
4. Microsoft is losing millions of dollars a year because of Linux. If
we make the right moves, in a few years, they'll be losing billions a
year.
5. If we do the right things, the day will come when we'll be picking
Microsoft's bones out of the dirt.
>>Expect Linux programmers to strive for the same quality that Windows
>>programmers produce.
> EEK! What a terrifying thought!
This is typical UNIX arrogance. The day has long since passed when
UNIX could look down its technological nose at Windows. On the whole,
UNIX software is nowhere near the quality of Windows software, and
hasn't been for many years.
We've got to be arrogant, but arrogant in the right way.
------------------------------
From: "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 the dust!
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:55:11 -0400
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 01:17:08 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"The Queen of Cans and Jars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Bryan C wrote:
> >> >
> >> I wonder what kind of hardware requirements are
> >> > necessary to successfully support this feature if nothing is being
> >> > saved to non-volatile memory as you suggest.
> >> >
> >> Reportedly, the hardware requirements for XP, at least in terms of
> >> memory, are double those of Win 2K. I assume the HD and CPU
> >> requirements are also doubled.
> >
> >I don't think you can even find a new hard drive as small as what Window
XP
> >would require (1.5gb). I don't think you can even find a new processor as
> >small as what Windows XP will require (233mhz). The minimum requirement
is
> >basicly an old computer with (maybe) a $30 memory boost.
>
> Why the hell does it require 1.5Gb? I can install linux easily in
> 500Mb on a 100mhz,
Then do it. Due to the fact that no one company has ever and can never
possess a monopoly on operating systems your perfectly free to NOT use
Windows XP.
>so what extra bonuses would I get with XP for that
> extra processor and extra 1GB disk space?
Start here to find out:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/guide/featurecomp.asp
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
