Linux-Advocacy Digest #9, Volume #35 Wed, 6 Jun 01 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("JS \\
PL")
Re: Chicken and egg problem ("Seán Ó Donnchadha")
Re: UI Importance ("Mike")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. - Security issues.- competition - (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Bob Hauck)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications ("Flacco")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Laura M. Hagan")
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Nick Condon)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Ayende
Rahien")
Re: Best Distribution? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Best Distribution? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Is Open Source for You? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Fred K Ollinger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:10:18 -0400
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fkjqd$93s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> 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.
What does all that have to do with an operating system crash? The feature
your talking about gives you the option of saving an open document if the
"program" stops responding. I've been running Windows XP *BETA!* for a month
and the OS has never crashed. Been running Windows 2000 since the day it
hit the shelves and had 1 (one) OS crash. Whenever I run Mandrake programs
crash left and right. It's a rarity that even a "program" crashes under
Windows 2000.
And I don't see anywhere on the features page where it talks about reporting
errors back to Microsoft. Can you point to where they talk about that
feature?
http://www.microsoft.com/office/evaluation/fastfacts.htm#header1
Or are you just plain wrong about that too?
------------------------------
From: "Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicken and egg problem
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:11:47 -0400
"Gerald Meazell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The article explains that Win 1.x and 2.x had the same problem which
> was solved by Win 3.x. This, the article explains, is why millions
> flocked to Win 3.x, the good backward compatibility. So MS is allowed
> to get it wrong in the first two versions but IBM is required to do it
> right the first time?
>
The way I see it, Win3.x succeeded because of its combination of good
back-compatibility, compelling Windows apps, and *PERFECT* timing. By the
time OS/2 2.x came out, the back-compatibility requirement had grown to
include Windows apps (which OS/2 2.x ran badly), there were still no
compelling OS/2 apps, and even if all that were different, the thing would
have failed anyway, because it was already too late.
OS/2 is a great example of excellent software whose every release was a
terrible software *PRODUCT*.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 16:11:40 GMT
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:00:13 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >Give me an example of how it's crippled?
>
> No command history, no tab completion, leaving lines all over the
> place, shitty shell scripting, shitty redirection, scrolling back up
> the screen, less ability to customise the prompt, no starting
> processes in the background, no ansi colours in prompt, I could go on,
> but I won't
Are you using Win98?
The W2k CLI has command history, tab completion (or use the key of your
choice), full redirection (stdin, stdout, stderr), can start processes in
the background, and my shells have 2000 lines of memory (the length is user
programmable).
There are things that the W2k command line doesn't have, and I could
probably add quite a few significant things to your list. But, I won't.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop. - Security issues.- competition -
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 16:47:24 GMT
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:53:52 GMT, Philip Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For instance the Mac's ease of use and high quality security should be
> something that we as linux people should strive for not just dismiss as
> gliter or hype.
Dunno about ease-of-use, but the only reason MacOS (prior to OS-X) had any
security at all was because it didn't run any network services. It sure as
hell had no local security. By that standard, MS-DOS is real secure too.
OS-X has not been out long enough to make any comments on it's security
record.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 16:48:09 GMT
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:36:03 GMT, Christopher L. Estep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Star Office? (Max, it's available for Windows (and it's still free), but
>can't compare feature-wise to Office 97, let alone either 2000 *or* the
>just-released XP.)
Name a feature that it lacks compared to Office 97.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:05:38 GMT
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:26:44 GMT, Stephen Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>> That would have required intelligence in order
>>> for him to think of doing that, I suppose.
>>
>>Someone _challenged_ him to do that. His response was that he wouldn't
>>jump on command.
>
>Bob Hauck defending Aaron Kookis...
Defending? Not really. Just pointing out that he had a lame response to
the challenge.
> why am I not surprised?
I really don't know the answer to that one. You clearly haven't been paying
attention if you think I go around defending Kulkis. Perhaps you have some
prejudices of your own that you need to work out.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:07:18 GMT
Windows XP: Microsoft is still going to fuck you, but now they want you
to wear bondage gear while they do it.
------------------------------
From: "Laura M. Hagan" <doesn'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 08:42:15 -0700
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> drsquare wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:41:40 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >Ray Fischer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >Spot the disease-ridden homosexuality promoter.
> > >>
> > >> LOL! Naw, Kulkis isn't a homophobe in denial!
> > >
> > >Do homosexuals have a much shorter lifespan than heterosexuals
> > >a) no
> > >B) YES
> >
> > No.
>
> National Institute of Health statistics indicate that
> the CORRECT ANSWER IS (B)
>
> >
> > >Is it due to deadly diseases that they spread amongst themselves
> > >a) no
> > >B) YES
> >
> > No.
>
>
> National Institute of Health *AND* Center for Disease Control statistics
> indicate that the CORRECT ANSWER IS (B)
>
> >
> > >no more questions, your honor.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> You've never noted the number of 20-50 year old fags dying of AIDS,
> Hepatitis, TB, and other nasties?
Sexual group with lowest incidence of AIDS transmission:
Lesbians. Those are homosexuals, in case you hadn't noticed.
If disease transmission is to determine whether a sexual relationship
is "good" or "bad," then women ought not engage in heterosexual
sex at all -- they should all become lesbians.
That what you're advocating, Kulkis?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
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: 6 Jun 2001 17:36:54 GMT
Stephen Edwards wrote:
>No, I'm a proud Yank. And the very notion that
>a person should not be proud of his or her nation
>is absurd. Everyone should be proud of their
>heritage, and their home.
Why? It's just where you born. It's not like you achieved anything. Your
parents fucked, and out you popped. It could have been anywhere. So just
keep that image in mind, next time you feel patriotic, just visualise your
father hunched over your mother. Which is all it comes down to, really.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[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: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:05:46 +0200
"JS \ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> What does all that have to do with an operating system crash? The feature
> your talking about gives you the option of saving an open document if the
> "program" stops responding. I've been running Windows XP *BETA!* for a
month
> and the OS has never crashed.
I got you beat here, 44 days before the UPS decided to play games.
> Been running Windows 2000 since the day it
> hit the shelves and had 1 (one) OS crash. Whenever I run Mandrake
programs
> crash left and right. It's a rarity that even a "program" crashes under
> Windows 2000.
Not really.
It certainly isn't common, but it's not very rare.
> And I don't see anywhere on the features page where it talks about
reporting
> errors back to Microsoft. Can you point to where they talk about that
> feature?
Didn't you noticed that when a program crash, it asks you whatever to send
or not send an error report?
The idea is that:
A> If it's a known problem, you would get the fix.
B> If it's an unknown problem, MS would get the technicaleties of the
situation, rather than a cryptic "the program crashed".
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best Distribution?
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:13:11 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 06 Jun 2001 00:29:42 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:03:57 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >>>(u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
> >>
> >> So this translates to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
> >
> >In his ferver to get himself kill filed, DrSquare finally
> >succeded ...
> >
> ><plonk>
> >(yes my killfile really works)
>
> What's the record for killfiles on this group?
Don't try to break it, Kulkis set new records daily, and not only on this
group, I understand that people has killfiled him on half the known
newsgroups.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best Distribution?
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:15:43 +0200
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fh4vr$l6o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >>> mail: gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de registered Linux user
> >>> #64239
> >>
> >> I keep seeing people put different variations of their email address in
> >> their posts. I'm new to the News Groups, so I was wondering if you
> >> would be so kind as to enlighten me about why this is done? Sorry to
> >> be off topic, but, if it's a useful News Group hint, I'd like to know
> >> it.
> >
> > If you have your whole email address at some point, some automated
> > software will pick it up and start spamming you. That's why there's lots
> > of wired variations, such as mine,below.
> >
> > -Ed
> >
> >
> >
> Funny thing is though, I have been posting about 6 months now with my
> real email adress, both here, and on slashdot, and my spam intake is
> still at only 1 on average daily. I do take the time to report them to
> their ISP's if I can parse the headers, so maybe I've landed on some
> 'Don't spam him' list?
Or you got lucky, and your email has not been proccessed yet. Or there is a
slow-down in spam.
I wiped out my spammers list by mistake a while ago, and I *do* seem to get
a lot less spam lately.
> Even if the spam in my mailbox would grow, I'd still use my real email
> address, as I just plain refuse to bow to this kind of terrorism (yes I
> hate spammers, what gave you that idea?).
Don't equal spammers to terrorists, please.
Spammers are mere annoyance.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:22:23 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dplT6.8403$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fkigd$jig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9fkd06$1eeg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The distinction is that the GUI & GDI are separate. If the GUI
crashes,
> > > fine, just respawn explorer. If the GDI crashes, well WinNT needs
that
> to
> > > function correctly so it throws an exception (Blue screen)
> >
> > Okay, but why does it need the GDI to function correctly?
> > What is the *point* in making the OS depended on the GDI?
>
> Many subsystems in Win32 use COM, and COM uses window messages to
> synchronize what used to be called Apartment Threaded COM objects (now
> called Single Threaded Apartments or STA's). This allowed COM objects
that
> were written without reentrancy in mind to function correctly in the 32
bit
> model without having to rewrite them.
>
> Sadly, STA's are still all too common, and parts of the OS still use STA's
> in their own COM activities.
Okay, I think I begin to undertand. But how does the GDI relate to windows
messages?
In another post, you mentioned that the problem is in the GUI, not in the
GDI, so I probably missed something.
Does the GUI handle the windowing messages?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:23:44 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GrlT6.8405$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fkigp$jig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:30:13 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why should it restart it? If the GUI crashes, that means something
is
> > > > seriously wrong, and will likely just crash again.
> > >
> > > Why? There are many things that can cause a crash, and some of them
can
> > > be transient. Like a bug in the GUI that makes it crash when a user
app
> > > gives it a bad parameter. Restarting the GUI will solve the problem
> > > until the user does the same sequence of actions again.
> >
> > There is a confustion here.
> > In Windows, there is the GUI, which is handled by Explorer, and there is
> the
> > GDI, which does the screen drawing.
> > You can kill the GUI & restart it, but the GDI is the one that the
system
> is
> > depended on.
>
> No, the GUI is not Explorer. Explorer is simply a file manager. The GUI
is
> in USER, which manages windows and various other high level objects
(menus,
> widgets, etc..) while GDI is only graphics primitives (Display contects,
> regions, lines, etc..)
Okay, then what are we talking about here? The GUI in USER, or the GDI?
What does Win32 relies on?
Beside, I had the impressions that Explorer did at least some of the
window's drawing, am I wrong here?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:25:24 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:SmlT6.8402$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fkigs$jig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Okay, this makes much more sense now.
> > Win32 is depended on the GDI, and if the GDI crash, Win32 will crash
too.
> > This obviously render the system unworkable.
> >
> > Can the system *restart* Win32 & GDI?
> > Or would too much data would be lost to make it a workable solution?
>
> Well, if Win32 dies, then any application running that makes calls to
Win32
> will die with a fault as well. Basically you could restart Win32, but
you'd
> need to dump all Win32 processes first, and it's doubtful whether that
would
> be beneficial for the effort.
Well, you *could* write an NT native application, I suppose.
It wouldn't be depended on Win32, that way.
It's not done that often, though.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:30:11 +0200
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> > So in summary, moving the window manager and the GDI from user mode to
> > kernel mode has provided improved performance without any significant
> > decrease in system stability or reliability.
>
> What a load of crap. It's quite simple :
>
> People who write drivers make pointer errors => your system dies
> People who write the subsystem that lives in the Kernel Space make
> errors => your system dies
>
> That is why MY windows box keeps crashing so often (and every windows
> box that I have seen).
>
> THERE IS NO PLACE FOR EXTRA RISK IN KERNEL SPACE. This is a simple trade
> off between reliability and speed/convenience. Therefore you should
> endeavor to place as little code in the kernel as possible.
>
> Much of the same arguments can be used against Linux when compared to a
> micro kernel approach such as the famous debate between Minux's Andy T
> and Linus.
>
> Whichever why your flag flies: for the book to say that "[kernel space
> GUI] without any significant decrease in system stability or
> reliability." is a provable bald face lie. All I need to do is look at
> my Linux box in comparison to my win98 box to see that.
>
> This is just simple common sense.
No, it's not.
Don't try to compare Linux to 9x.
If you want to do *that*, why don't we dredge up the *original* Unix, slap
X, CORBA, TCP/IP, OpenGL, sound, and all the other equilents to what Win9x
can do.
All of that in the addition that all effort to mention backward
compatability with the applications that Unix had at the time (no re-compile
here, you move a binary file from an original Unix to the Unix9x, and it
*works*).
*Then* you can try to make the comparision. I can assure you, Unix9x
wouldn't be a shrine of stability either.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:31:59 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:29:02 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <9fjk2m$jod$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> >
> >
> >> > No, I meant it like it was written. It's a little trick in C that
> >> > will get you fired if you snick it into production code.
> >>
> >> And for good reason, too!
> >
> >It does teach you a good lesson on how C works.
>
> IF you already know how it works.
And if you don't, you'll search for the info.
Point of the excersize completed.
If you don't search for the info, then another point of the excersize was
completed. You aren't fit to be a programmer.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:32:52 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:30:44 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> >And on the CLI you'll have to memorize all of this options, the GUI
allow
> >> >you to just see them.
> >>
> >> Oh no, memorising a few little flags ONCE... With the GUI equivalent,
> >> it's good for the first few times, but after that, you just don't need
> >> it. Programs should be designed for long term use, not just the first
> >> few times.
> >
> >You *are* aware that GUI programs can have command line parameters,
right?
>
> And how do you specify them?
Same way you do in CLI?
command command_line_arguements
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:33:30 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:35:27 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:44:23 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >> (Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> >> >Of course, you're also assuming that one will generally want to move
all
> >> >files. In my experience, that's by far less common than moving just
some
> >> >of the files.
> >>
> >> Yes, something like "*.doc" or "*.jpg" would be much more common.
> >
> >Oh, of *course*, I would want to copy *all* my files, including the
> >sensitive & private ones to a disk I send to a client.
>
> Why would you want to do that?
That was sarcasm, it's quite prevelent in these newgroups, you better get
better recognizing it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:39:00 GMT
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:56:28 +0200, Mart van de Wege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
>> Have you actually calculated the costs?
>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.
Yes, I saw the announcement from IBM. Apparently Max didn't, or he thinks
they are going to go out of business. I was just trying to help him see how
it might be cost-effective if done on a large enough scale.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Open Source for You?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:45:35 GMT
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 1 Jun 2001
>"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?
Quite possibly, yes, according to Microsoft's internal documents. If
you could use Open Source, MS is going to be 'leveraging' for all they
are worth to get you stuck on NT.
>My Lord, you are a dense one, aren't you.
To be so unaware of what is going on around you makes it obvious that
you are the dense one, Stephen.
>Save this drivel for the COLA camp, please.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:45:36 GMT
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 2 Jun 2001
[...]
>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?
Because it is self-delusion, obviously. As if you were entirely unaware
of Microsoft's purposeful and routine monopolization to illegally
manipulate the market to ensure that the only thing that "works for you"
is NT monopoly crapware.
You must be a sock puppet, to be so unaware of your own best interests.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:50:41 GMT
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 2 Jun 2001
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Oh, now we're exactly on the same wavelength!
>> Except that hardware doesn't suck as much <grin>.
>
>Actually, I think it does.
>
>Did you know than an NT application cannot
>use more than 2GB of RAM? Do you know why?
>
>Because NT was originally designed around
>MIPS. The MIPS chip could support up to
>4GB, but applications could only access
>up to 2GB of RAM. Why? No idea.
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know!!
"Monopoly crapware".
>Perhaps
>it was an IBMism at the time, such as "oh,
>nobody will ever need $SPACE".
So as software, NT sucks even worse that software usually does, but
somehow this means hardware sucks as much as software?
I don't get it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: 6 Jun 2001 18:00:23 GMT
>... it's not "free software" as advertized. It's
>not appreciably less free than the proprietary
>stuff, but it is pretending to me more free, and
>not just in terms of the price tag.
Well, ok we have to agree to disagree. Let it go. MS have made tons of lies
as well. Why not jump on them for a while. The free sw people are trying to
do something noble. They are doing it in a hostile world. They are doing
a damn good job. MS is trying to take our money, it, too is doing a great
job. If you download free sw and you don't think that it lives up to hype
then ask for your money back. Do the same w/ MS products, too. Let's see
who gives it back first.
Fred
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
