Linux-Advocacy Digest #4, Volume #35 Wed, 6 Jun 01 06:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (GreyCloud)
Re: XP - what's for me? ("Rob Dijkshoorn")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsft - the WASTED $1,000 PC (GreyCloud)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Donn Miller)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts (GreyCloud)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (GreyCloud)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Mart van de Wege")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:09:05 -0700
"Christopher L. Estep" wrote:
>
> "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 30 May 2001 11:42:17 -0500, "Chad Myers"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Windows XP will change all that, though. MS is going to quickly
> > >fade out Win9x because of all its shortcomings and failings,
> > >not to mention it's a support nightmare.
> >
> > It's deja vu all over again!
>
> How?
>
> XP includes a slick little applet called *Remote Assistance* that lets the
> user allow anyone (from Microsoft to the smart techie next door neighbor) to
> help troubleshoot their PC.
>
> I do tech support for a living (level 1 CAE/TSR for Comcast Online) and RA
> alone is going to make my job tons easier.
>
> Christopher L. Estep
You must be working for the wrong company then... HP has had this little
program on the HP Pavillions since Win95.
And the computer won't get resolved no better than the guy at the other
end either.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Rob Dijkshoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XP - what's for me?
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:21:24 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
news:TKlT6.8411$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Do you believe MS should have the license
> > to essentially take over the internet
> > with .NET and replace the current world
> > powers who are regulating it's functionality?
>
> Do you see MS owning domain name registrars? Do you see them owning
> internet backbones like Sprint or Worldcom or AT&T? Do you see them
owning
> ICANN or NSI? Do you see any way for them to usurp this power without
> owning all such bodies? I certainly don't.
>
Oh come on, you can't seriously mean that. Where was Microsoft on the
internet map 5 years ago and where are they now? Nowadays the majority uses
IE. Soon we will see IIS take over apache as the dominant web server on big
sites, which means non-ms browsers will become less and less useful. This
already happened in the UK, where MS built a governement website wich is
accessable only with IE on Windows.
The same conts for mobile devices. Where was microsoft in the mobile devices
market 3 years ago? Now they have a special server for mobile devices
(Mobile Information Server), they have browsers for pocket devices, apps for
pocket devices and soon that part will be taken over bij MS as well.
As soon as MS controls most major ways to both use the internet and publish
on the internet, it is time for the next step: to take over network
providers. Why do you think MS holds interests in every major broadband
provider? And in most major cable networks? I am afraid of a total MS
monopoly on communication. You'd better too. There is too much at risk not
to be afraid.
Rob
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 05:11:54 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> IIRC, the GDI got into the kernel space because of speed issues.
This would be a shame if true. XFree86 4.0 and 4.1 are able to acheive
some very good acceleration without putting the video HW in ring level 0
or operating in kernel mode. Plus, it's safer (theoretically).
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:13:08 -0700
"Christopher L. Estep" wrote:
>
> "Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 30 May 2001 02:21:30 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Chad Myers wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > VBScripts end up being executables which only run with as much
> > >> > or less privilege than the user.
> > >> >
> > >> > How is this different from perl scripts on Unix?
> > >>
> > >> Because Perl scripts can't touch "normal" users' files. It's obvious:
> > >> Windows 98 is a wide-open system, and most unices are not. The only
> way
> > >> to delete users' files on a unix system is if someone compromised the
> > >> system, and put a rogue Perl script where it shouldn't be.
> > >
> > >We, well I wasn't at least, talking about Win9x. Win9x is a toy OS and
> > >sucks. NT/2K are different.
> > >
> >
> > What's the market share of NT/2K?
> > How many viri are writtten specifically for 2K?
> >
> > Besides, you claimed that Windows is ubiquitous because it is the better
> > O/S. If NT/2K is better than 9x, why is not everybody using that than?
>
> Simple: OS price. If NT or 2000 were available for the price of 9x, 9x
> would die.
>
> People don't run 9x because they *want* to.
>
> They run it because it runs all their apps for a decent price.
>
> If a user's needs include security (and they can afford it) they go with
> NT/2000 (witness the increase in *non-networked* Windows 2000 users and home
> Windows 2000 Professional users).
>
> Windows XP will be available in both Home and Professional Editions, based
> on the superior codebase of Windows 2000 Professional, *not* the junk of
> 9x/ME.
>
> And, quite bluntly, I have been shouting that Microsoft should simply *kill*
> the Home Edition of XP and drop Professional's price to that of 9x.
>
> I have, in fact, been recommending Windows 2000 Professional for home use
> since it shipped.
>
> And the saame recommendation goes for Windows XP Profgessional when *it*
> ships.
>
> Christopher L. Estep
I already get the full version of a very stable O/S for $75. Solaris 8
x86.
Comes with some rather good compilers too.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsft - the WASTED $1,000 PC
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:19:57 -0700
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Porter wrote:
> >
> >But they don't always get accepted overnight.
> >Pc sales world wide have dropped down, to an all time low,
> >and consumers are tired of junk thats obsolete in a few years,
> >and don't have the money to throw away any more.
> >
> >--
> >Kind Regards
> >Terry
> >--
> >**** ****
> > My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
> > 1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
> > Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
> >Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
> >** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
>
> I agree with Terry's comments 100%.
>
> I find difficult and extremely amazing to see even my company
> contemplating a HUGE EXPENDITURE to upgrade all their desktop
> PC's to a Windows XP level and throwing away hords of Pentium III's
> in the process as they were inadequate for the job.
>
> This kind of WASTE is horrifying to me and a horrible waste of
> corporate BLOOD.
>
> It's so horrible that I'm actually surprised the EPA hasn't
> stopped in to stop MS from doing this to the world.
>
> What a waste of resources. Computers being thrown away which
> aren't even 50% of the way thru their lives.
>
> My desktop PC is exactly 1 year old and it's going into the
> dumpster come November of this year. It will not even have
> made it to it's 2nd anniversary of service with the company.
>
> My computer cost over $1,000 and it's replacement will cost
> over $2,000.
>
> Truely! What kind of a world have we entered?
> What business will spend close to $3 Million dollars to
> upgrade their machines like that every 2 years?
>
> I can remember as a younger man how you could find IBM
> typewriters which had been in service for over a decade
> within my company. A computer isn't quite as resiliant
> but, I believe if you can't keep them around for 4 years
> which is ACRS plus 1 or 1.5 you are wasting corporate
> assets.
>
> And then we have to consider all those Microsoft Servers
> and the internet connectivity hardware which get's upgraded
> with it. We have offices everywhere. You could spend
> $1.5 million more on server gear just to make the rest
> work correctly as MS writes proprietary protocals which
> are useless on old MS servers.
>
> Twenty years ago, I worked for companies which were as
> profitable as the one's today. What happened to our
> PROFIT ethic? How can we let these people get away
> with this? Are corporations to today's presidents
> and managers just toy's which are stepping stones
> with no long term committement in mind?
>
> I truely feel when I see things like this that
> we have no will to survive the long haul.
>
> It was never intended.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
Hehehe... and these newer computers suck up more power than we realize.
TechTV had shown the heatsink of a pentium III dual Xeon... gawd it was
as big as a toaster!
The P4 had a muffin fan attached to it... a big one and inside the box
were four other fans running just to keep it cool.. with a required 480
Watt power supply.
With power costs rising I don't think its a wise idea to change.... now
of course you could throw in a beneficial suggestion on how to save the
company a high energy bill. Just recommend the G4 cube. No fan .. low
power consumption. Sometimes the oblique route works wonders in higher
echelons. The pointy haired bosses can understand these savings.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[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
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:23:31 -0700
David Brown wrote:
>
> JS \ PL wrote in message ...
> >
> >> First off, what if that word document is open and the machine crashes
> >> or is shutdown while another user is using the system? If on reboot,
> >> everything is fine than I suspect a list of some sort is saved.
> >
> >The OS won't crash so I guess we'll never know the answer to "what if it
> >crashes". If you shut it down it warns of all active users, and asks if
> >you'd like to save whatever programs are open (that's what shutting down
> >IS).
> >
> >>
>
> I hope you'll forgive us if we all (even including most wintrolls, and MS
> themselves) laugh ourselves silly at that statement.
>
> One of the fabulous new added features of both Office XP and Windows XP is
> how well it can cope with crashes - automatically recovering documents (for
> Office), preparing error reports and sending in details of the bug directly
> to MS. If you don't mind the idea of your PC reporting back to big brother
> for every problem, and you believe MS will bother trying to patch the bugs,
> then this is a good idea. But it really shows the kind of confidence MS
> have in their own software when they boast of their new crash recovery and
> reporting system.
Cripes, in the not too distant future we will have internet gridlock
with all that reporting going on!
--
V
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 05:25:09 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
GreyCloud wrote:
> I already get the full version of a very stable O/S for $75. Solaris 8
> x86.
> Comes with some rather good compilers too.
Hey! Well, whaddya know. I've been running the full version of a
pretty stable OS myself for $0. The only hitch is that I had to create
two floppy disk images... the rest of the installation was done via DHCP
thru my cable modem. But I sure am missing out on some mighty fine tech
su-- oh wait, that's right -- all my tech support is available free of
charge via a mailing list. But I'd rather hold all day long on the
phone for a knowledgable tech support rep, so that's why I'd rather be
running Windows 2000. Plus, installing an OS via cable modem is bad for
one's health, since data traveling over the cable creates small
cancer-causing time-varying E-M waves.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[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
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:26:46 -0700
David Brown wrote:
>
> stevekimble wrote in message ...
>
> >No, but I've got one about the Brits capturing the Enigma machine on Uxxx
> >(can't
> >remember it's number - sorry) and not the Yanks, as per the movie. A good
> >story
> >it is too, probably something to do with it being based on fact. Sorry for
> >being
> >totally off topic, Chad, but I've been desperate to get this one in
> >somewhere; you
> >know how it is with us in the Old World, always trying to put one over you
> >ex-colonials......
> >
>
> Most of the bits of the Enigma brought out of Germany to the UK came
> directly from someone working in the Enigma factory - he smuggled it out
> piece by piece. The bits were recovered by the British, and put together
> back in the UK. The Americans had absolutely nothing to do with it (in WW2,
> the Americans were renowned for their military strength and numbers - I am
> not trying to downplay their part in things, but it was the British who did
> the intelligence work). That American submarine movie is no better than the
> worst communist propoganda during the cold war.
>
> By the way, has anyone seen Pearl Harbour yet? I'm curious as to how far
> from the truth it is (they probably even claim that the attack was a
> surprise).
There was a local article about that. The reporters interviewed the
Pearl Harbor survivors about it and they said it was pretty accurate.
All except one incident where a sailor dived into the bay naked. When
he got out of the water his CO ordered him to put on something ,...
anything, so he could help remove the dead bodies. Well, the sailor
could only find a pink dress to wear.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:33:19 -0700
Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their
> mouths told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GreyCloud) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Stephen Edwards wrote:
> >>
> >> Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their
> >> mouths told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GreyCloud) wrote in
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>
> >> >Jan Johanson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> et. ..
> >> >> > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >> >> > > 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.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then you better tell the CEO of IBM that Linux is substandard
> >> >> > because they just dumped an awful lot of money into getting linux
> >> >> > to run on their mainframes. :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, I see, so Linux=good because a lot of money was spent modifying
> >> >> it to run on some once-upon-a-time-evil-empire's hardware?
> >> >>
> >> >> So, the $2 billion in R&D MS spends yearly on Windows, being
> >> >> greater than the <$1 billion IBM has spent pretty much helps
> >> >> confirm that Windows>Linux - is that what you meant?
> >> >
> >> >Not at all. IBM is more efficient than microsoft and I know quite a
> >> >few of their employees... gawd I sure wouldn't want to get under an
> >> >MRI made by Microsoft!
> >>
> >> Begging your pardon, but where did you ever get
> >> the idea that a coporate organization with IBM's
> >> overhead is "more efficient" than Microsoft.
>
> >Easy, first they are taking a product (linux) and then refining for the
> >mainframes instead of taking it from the ground up... I consider that
> >very efficient.
>
> No, that's not efficiency. Assuming that the scenario
> which you are describing is true, it's awfully similar
> to why they used an open architecture for their original
> IBM PC. They know that it would take years if they were
> to do it right, so they've decided to do it quickly
> instead.
>
> In other words, they are taking jagged shortcuts to
> avoid their own overhead. That is NOT efficiency.
>
> >> Microsoft is significantly smaller (infrastructure-
> >> wise) than IBM, and I cannot see how this is possible
> >> in any way.
> >
> >Note that many writers for various publications take note in the premise
> >that microsoft products "Weren't invented here". No real inside
> >innovations. Also the fact that IBM makes more than just computers
> >which in turn makes it a larger company.
>
> Irrelevant, and not necessarily completely factual.
I won't argue with you. But who makes MRI equipment besides IBM and GE?
I don't think MS has the resources or the know how to do it. The point
is is that it takes a cooperated effort among industrial giants to get
hardware that is high tech built. Look at Intel... do you honestly
think they make everything themselves when manufacturing chips? MS is a
unique company that primarily markets O/S and software.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:35:44 -0700
Michael Vester wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > When you deal in military systems you always have a high overhead...
> > mainly due to the need of large human resources. These designs are
> > original and take lots of money and time. One other factor is once they
> > start production of say 10 or 20 units of whatever hardware they also
> > have to produce enough spare parts to last the projected hardwares
> > lifespan. And this takes a logistics system that can track where those
> > parts are. None of this comes by cheaply. Once you run out of those
> > spare parts its very costly to shop around for some company that is
> > willing to tool up and manufacture those parts.
> >
> > The original PC was put into the hands of one man...(can't remember his
> > name as he died in a plane wreck).
>
> Philip "Don" Estridge. He designed IBM's original 8088 PC from
> off-the-shelf components. Cheap and dirty.
> --
> 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
Yes, and at that time it took on some of the hardware ideas of the Apple
II. Look at the apple II card slot structure to the IBM PC card slot
structure. It wasn't a knock off but used the best ideas around at the
time. The big thing was that IBM legitimized the PC market. Then
business started to take the PC seriously.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:56:28 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:37:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> In theory, an ISP could run thousands of hosts on one mainframe. Such
>> an ISP would go out of business, though. It is not an efficient way to
>> spend money, that's all.
>
> Have you actually calculated the costs? Lots of hosting providers offer
> "dedicated hosts", which is usually something like a Cobalt RaQ, for
> $200/month. A mainframe could do the same thing on one machine. There
> should be a breakeven point where the mainframe is cheaper per host,
> since the cost to add another is $0 vs ~$1000 for the RaQ. The only
> question is whether or not that point is within the capacity of the
> mainframe.
>
Sorry to butt in halfway through the thread, Bob, but that is exactly
what Telia, originally the Swedish Telco and now the biggest ISP in
Scandinavia is doing. They are migrating their entire setup to one IBM
zSeries mainframe. That mainframe is going to host all their customers. I
can't provide you with the links yet, but there was a Slashdot discussion
on it about three months ago, so it should be easy to track down.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
