Linux-Advocacy Digest #425
Linux-Advocacy Digest #425, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 04:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Joshua Hesse)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (Brent R)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (Ray Chason)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha (Ray Chason)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("nuxx")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (robert bronsing)
Re: State of linux distros ("Edward Rosten")
Re: State of linux distros ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
("Flacco")
Re: Who said NT was stable ! ("tony roth")
Re: State of linux distros ("Reefer")
Re: State of linux distros (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Gerry)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Gerry)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: State of linux distros ("Reefer")
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American Activities
Committee (Nick Condon)
From: Joshua Hesse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,talk.politics.guns,demon.local
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 22 Feb 2001 19:18:53 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Donald R. McGregor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
:Ian Davey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:then why all of the bullet-riddled bodies in British morgues these days?
:
:Which bullet-riddled bodies are those? Don't forget, I actually live here. Can
:you provide some evidence that the number of bullet-riddled bodies has
:increased since the ban on hand guns? Should be easy for you to do if the
:facts are on your side.
:http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4111096,00.html
:Tony Thompson
:Sunday December 31, 2000
:The Observer
:Gun crime in Britain is soaring to record levels: executions,
:woundings and related incidents in the past year are set to be
:the highest ever, an investigation by The Observer has revealed.
:Preliminary figures show there have been more than 15,000 armed
:offences during 2000, up by almost 10 per cent over last year.
:The number of armed operations by police is also at a record level.
:[...]
:Manchester, notorious for its levels of gun crime in the early
:Nineties, is also seeing a dramatic rise in such offences. In a
:three-week period in September alone, seven people were shot,
:including a 16-year-old murdered while riding his bike through
:a park.
:Although the use of firearms is a countrywide problem, it is most
:acute in the capital. In the past eight weeks there have been more
:than 35 reports of guns being fired illegally in London. The result:
:five deaths and 12 serious woundings.
You clipped out a good line in there:
The rate in Scotland has jumped by 20 per cent.
That settles it. Next time I go to Scotland I'm going to take a
mace and a claymore. However, I suspect that they don't allow
TOWs on commercial flights.
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
UNL Anime Club: http://www.unl.edu/otaku
--
From: Brent R [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:44:35 GMT
meow wrote:
I've been coming up with some anagrams of Aaron Kulkis name and i
thought id share them with you
Aaron Kulis = Miserable piece of shit
Aaron Kulis = Toss Pot
Aaron Kulis = Argumentitive fuck wit
Aaron Kulis = Arrogant wank stain
Aaron Kulis = Numb nuts
thats all i have so far
I think there surely must be some more
Anyone got any others?
Meow
OK where's the joke? Those obviously aren't anagrams. Or is this thing 1
mile above my head?
I suspect that 'meow' is no older than 14 years old, and I'm totally
serious about that.
--
Happy Trails
-Brent
=
http://rotten168.home.att.net
=
ICQ# 51265871
--
From: Ray Chason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:42:28 -
meow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been coming up with some anagrams of Aaron Kulkis name and i
thought id share them with you
[flush]
Killfiles plonk the little wankers,
All the wankers of the world.
White and yellow, black and red,
Killfiles plonk the wankers dead.
Killfiles plonk the little wankers of the world!
*plonk*
--
--===[ Ray Chason ]===--
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
--
From:
Linux-Advocacy Digest #426
Linux-Advocacy Digest #426, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Nick Condon)
Re: State of linux distros (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Henri
Karrenbeld)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Woofbert)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Woofbert)
Re: Linux web pads? (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (meow)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (meow)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (meow)
Re: Answer this if you can... (Benjamin Jones)
Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Donal K.
Fellows")
Re: Interesting Google Facts! (Jasper)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 23 Feb 2001 09:08:58 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
A bystander? Not sure I'd agree with that being taken as anything
other than murder. Criminals still have rights, even when they abuse
the rights of others. This is because we live in (what we like to
think of as) a free society, and is IMHO one of the main features of
one...
Did you know that when coming into a situation in progress, the
police shoot the WRONG person about 40% of the time. Conversely,
armed-bystanders kill the wrong person less than 5% of the time.
Sounds like an argument for unarmed police.
--
Nick
--
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
From: Ketil Z Malde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:19:11 GMT
"Mike" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And yet, Red Hat appears to be consolidating its leadership position, and
was (until the recent slowdown) on track to become profitable next year.
They are selling exactly that "dubious value" you refer to.
Yes. Although you'll notice that the staff S.u.S.E laid off, was a
really small percentage of its total (which is mostly in Europe, not
US) and that it is the market leader in Germany and big in the rest of
Europe. I wouldn't write them off just yet, and they have, IMHO, a
better track record than RH for providing stable and technically sound
solutions, as well as the largest selection of applications this side
of Debian.
Debian, on the other hand, may not have as large a market share -
although it's hard to measure, since nobody buys it from shelves or
downloads ISO images - but it's really hard to see how it could go out
of "business", since it's not really dependent on business to exist.
In Asia, TurboLinux has much of the foothold S.u.S.E has in Europe.
But it appears that they are the only Linux distribution vendor who has a
viable chance of long term survival and reasonable financial success at this
point.
I don't think that's clear.
Although Debian will almost certainly never be a "financial success",
might I remind you that it shares this property with the kernel. It's
not necessarily a bad thing.
The problem for Red Hat is that this places them one notch below
Microsoft in the open source bible. Corporations might like them, but
they'll be trashed on cola in proportion to their success
Not really, they get thrashed because they rush releases of beta
software which doesn't always work very well.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henri Karrenbeld)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 23 Feb 2001 09:21:19 GMT
"Peter da Silva" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
And your understanding of ActiveX is fundamentally flawed because
ActiveX is
a code packaging and delivery mechanism (a-la Navigator plugins) whose
job
does not and should not include security. The real problem is Win9x's
lack
of protection. When you run IE on WinNT/2K with sufficiently low user
privileges, you're totally protected against attacks via ActiveX.
For values of protected that don't include, say, being protected
against being used to launch spam,
No, you may simply run the browser as a user who has no address book. That's
what I do.
Although this helps against some viruses it does not work against:
- viruses that scan the netwerk stream for email addresses (like I-Worm.Hybris
and I-Worm.MTX)
- viruses that scan your 'Sent Mail' or 'Inbox' folder for Email addresses
(example: I-Worm.ZippedFiles, it scans Inbox)
- viruses that spread via infection of MIRC.INI (like VBS.Loveletter)
- viruses that spread via infection of your Outlook Express signature
Linux-Advocacy Digest #427
Linux-Advocacy Digest #427, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 08:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Where is suse 7.1? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Opsss there goes another one. ("Flacco")
Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Into the abyss... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Bloody Viking)
Re: Who said NT was stable ! (Bloody Viking)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop ("Donal K.
Fellows")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: State of linux distros ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop ("Donal K.
Fellows")
Re: LPI Certification ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha (Roy.Culley)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Interesting Google Facts! ("Edward Rosten")
Why don't we see more advocacy for Linux/MPI? (mlw)
Re: Interesting Google Facts! (mlw)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Gareth Brereton)
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where is suse 7.1?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:56:44 -
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
Suse 7.1 was to be released on feb 12. Still now the website says, it
will be available from mid-february? When is it going to be released?
Here in the UK, 7.1 was released on the 19th. I put my order in and
received an EMail to say there was a problem with a batch of CD's and I
could expect delivery within ten days.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
--
From: "Flacco" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Opsss there goes another one.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 05:57:55 -0500
Another fact is that the omni-present war cry of the LinZealots is the
mocking phrase "you will be assimilated" by Linux.
To my knowledge, the cry is simply "We will not be assimilated."
--
From: "Joseph T. Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,demon.local
Subject: Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 23 Feb 2001 11:14:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Woofbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: : You've said this before. What's wrong with Godwin? What did he ever do
: : to you? Are you under the mistaken apprehension that Godwin's Law is a
: : binding rule of netiquette?
:
:
: It isn't, but many uninformed people think that it is, which has the
: perverse effect of making it very difficult to discuss and therefore
: learn how to prevent the recurrence of crimes similar to Hitler's.
: It's one thing to discuss how to prevent another holocaust ... it's
: another to call someone a Nazi or compare his politics to Hitler's. This
: was not a discussion of Nazism or the Holocaust, it was a discussion of
: what people want to do with other people's information.
There are obvious parallels between Hitler and his crimes, and other
megalomaniacs and theirs. These don't get discussed, because of
Godwin's Law, because of the naive belief that Hitler and his crimes
were somehow unique, and because of the mistaken notion that comparing
them trivializes the suffering of the victims of Hitler's holocaust.
If you say "Never Again!" and mean it, you have to act like it. You
have to be willing to remember, and study, and analyze, and sometimes
set aside preconceived political or cultural notions of superiority or
any "do them before they do us" mentality. You also have to recognize
that the parts of human nature that Hitler, Stalin, and other
practitioners of genocide exploited were not unique to prewar Germany
or Russia, and could be exploited again under the right set of
circumstances. And, finally, you have to recognize that in most cases
genocide and other mass crimes have not been ends in themselves, but
means to an end - world domination - that many others continue to seek
to this day, through a variety of means, some of which are far more
dangerous than others.
Joe
--
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Into the abyss...
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:05:46 -
In article 96vglk$ee7$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
I have yet to see software on and of the UNIX environments I have tinkered
with that automatically refused to let you do something. WinME would not let
me update certain drivers because of their "driver signing" feature that
keeps one from installing "rogue applications" or whatever. I had to wrestle
with WinME to install a perfectly fine driver for a Soundblaster
Linux-Advocacy Digest #428
Linux-Advocacy Digest #428, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 10:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: How much do you *NEED*? ("Karel Jansens")
Re: Interesting Google Facts! ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Is innovation a blessing? (was Interesting article) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: State of linux distros (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("Chad Myers")
Re: Interesting Google Facts! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (chrisv)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American ("Donal K.
Fellows")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (chrisv)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Seán Ó
Donnchadha")
Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "Linux Usage Linked to AMD Damage" - MSN RD Division Customer Alert
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: "Karel Jansens" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How much do you *NEED*?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:23:47 -0100
In article 973tfe$eqg$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Angel Iglesias"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So with Microsoft software you pay _twice_.
It depends on how complex are you requirements.
Hey, _you_ claimed linux needs IT fees to keep it running. If that is
true for linux, it is true square for Windows.
If my linux requirements aren't complex, I won't need an IT department.
Unstable drivers will freeze anything. What kind of argument is that?
At least with linux, you can choose to leave out unstable drivers
Just answering to an argument like this with another equal.
You mentioned "kernel instable drivers", implying that they are compiled
into the kernel. This would mean that Windows has instable drivers in the
kernel as well (although in windows they would probably be called DLLs or
APIs or whatever), hence:
How do I recompile Windows?
What kind of question is this ? Why should I want to ? Do you think
that by compiling your kernel unstable drivers switch onto stable ones ?
If I were to discover that my linux distro was compiled with an instable
driver in the kernel, I can always take it apart and fix it. Recompiling
a linux kernel is not exactly rocket science and anyone who can read
should be able to do it.
I therefore repeat my question to you: How do I remove the instable bits
from Windows' kernel?
Only if you insist on tinkering. A properly configured linux system for
business use hardly needs any updating at all. Heck, it doesn't even
need reboots.
It DOES need reboots (I assure you), obviously much more less that
Windows; anyway, a properly configured Windows is the argument a
Winvocate would tell you ...
I reboot my linux system only for tinkering. A friend of mine does not
like tinkering, and he hasn't rebooted since he had linux installed, some
six months ago.
A "properly configured Windows system" _will_ decay until a reboot is
necessary; heck, even Microsoft themselves admit that publicly. Granted,
some Windows versions decay more slowly than others, but they all get
ripe eventually.
It _does_ mean something if a badly behaving application can take the
entire computer down.
Outlook virii under NT/2000 don't use to do that if properly
configured
system.
Are you sure?
Viri, troyans and worms are a risc to any computer; at least with
linux, they only affect the careless/dumb/gullible user and not the
rest of the system.
The same for a well set up Windows.
Hey, it's your ass if you choose to believe that.
And we can't stop laughing with all the dumb idiots who _still_ pretend
that their Windows is stable hehehe :-)
I do not pretend Windows is stable. I pretend is not as unstable as
it is usually said in here ... and keep on laughing about a lot of
things
...
"Not as unstable" is eerily reminiscent of "a little bit pregnant".
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==
--
From: "Donal K. Fellows" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Interesting Google Facts!
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:24:25 +
Charlie Ebert wrote:
Do a search on "Windows" - You see 24,900,000 references.
How are you filtering out non-computer uses of the term?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellowshttp://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I could even declare myself a religion, if that'd help.
-- Mark Loy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux-Advocacy Digest #430
Linux-Advocacy Digest #430, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 12:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ ("Mike")
Kulkis the newbie, its official! (woof)
Re: Is innovation a blessing? (was Interesting article) ("Edward Rosten")
Competition: How many punches could Kulkis take? (woof)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Klaus-Georg
Adams)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Seán Ó
Donnchadha")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Kulkis haters club seeking new members (woof)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
Kulis revelation! (woof)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
From: "Edward Rosten" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:20:55 +
pipes can solve that problem if multitasking is used. They can not if
single tasking is used. Therefore single tasking pipes have only a
subset of the functionality of mltitasking. Therefore in order to
solve all computations that pipes are able to solve, multitasking is
required.
This does not imply that pipes require multitasking. It merely shows
that a pipe with multitasking has more functionality than a pipe
without
multitasking.
If you're using shell syntax and sending the input of
one
job to the output of another as a definition, then even dos pipes
satisfy the definition.
A point I missed earlier. Using shell syntax as a definition, DOS does
not provide pipes since I came up with an example which does not work
under that definition since the output of one job is never passed to the
input of the next in that case.
[in th context of shell piping]
No it doesn't because the emulation of pipes proveides a subset of the
functionality,
so they are not pipes. You could say a 286 was a pentium
because it provides a subset of the functionality, but that is false. So
it is false that DOS pipes are UNIX pipes. Since what UNIX has is pipes,
what dos has can not be pipes.
Nonsense.
snip
OK. I'll concede, it was a poor argument. I suppose that I should think
before I post more often :-)
I believe what you're saying is that if C is a subset of A and B is a
subset of A then C may or may not be a subset of B. Do I take this
correctly?
Since you haven't bothered to quote a definition, one can only
conclude that you're making one up, and then using that to conclude
that dos does not "have real pipes". That's an entirely circular
argument, because you've chosen an arbitrary definition of a "pipe".
I'm using the definition of how data is piped between applications using
shell syntax.
If your definition of pipes refers to UNIX shell pipes, case your
definition is entirely circular. Obviously, a DOS pipe is not a UNIX
pipe.
Under the definition:
A (shell) pipe takes the output of one process and puts it in to the
input of another process.
DOS does not have shell pipes, since its pipes do not always do this.
Since shell pipes are the only kind of pipe that DOS makes an attempt at,
it does not have pipes under this definition.
However, it's important to be clear that when you say that "DOS doesn't
have real pipes", you are referring to your own arbitrary nonstandard
definition, and not the definition used by people who know what they're
talking about.
Any definition of pipes is arbitrary.
It's a small subset of the functionality offered by pipes.
So? Under this small subset of functionality, I have shown that what DOS
The problem is that you are confusing the UNIX implementation of pipes
with what pipes are. In particular, you would need to include
asynchronous processing in the definition of pipe.
Nope. If you look at the definition above, using single tasking,
sometimes pipes will fail, so they don't fit the definition. Multitasking
does not need to be explicit in the definition for it to be a
requirement. Under that definition of what pipes do, multitasking is
implied because there are situations where pipes using single tasking do
not fit the definition.
I suppose if you define pipes by the UNIX implementation of pipes, then
you are correct, but that's not a widely accepted definition of what a
pipe is
Isn't it? Pipes first appeared there (I believe) so it is not
unreasonable to use them as a defintion. Can you point to another
defintion of pipes that you believe to be better?
and to define a term by an implementation is a very convenient
way to make sure
Linux-Advocacy Digest #431
Linux-Advocacy Digest #431, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: The Windows guy.
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Richard E.
Silverman)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
101 uses for a Kulkis.. (woof)
Re: 101 uses for a Kulkis.. (woof)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Bob Hauck)
Re: Competition: How many punches could Kulkis take? (woof)
Re: The Windows guy. ("ne...")
Re: State of linux distros (Bob Hauck)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Donn Miller)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Peter Hayes)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Tim Limbert)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Peter Hayes)
Re: State of linux distros (Peter Hayes)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (Peter Hayes)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Peter Hayes)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:03:29 -
On 23 Feb 2001 02:21:06 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:46:12 +, Edward Rosten wrote:
This is a problem that ppes are fully able to solve:
program_that_wont_finish | head -3
pipes can solve that problem if multitasking is used. They can not if
single tasking is used. Therefore single tasking pipes have only a subset
of the functionality of mltitasking. Therefore in order to solve all
computations that pipes are able to solve, multitasking is required.
This does not imply that pipes require multitasking. It merely shows that
a pipe with multitasking has more functionality than a pipe without
What DOS does really isn't a pipe. It fails to conform
to the metaphor implied. It's really more of a bucket.
[deletia]
Instead of
Process - Process
it's
Process - intermediate storage - Process
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
--
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard E. Silverman)
Date: 23 Feb 2001 12:03:25 -0500
For the second time: please take this thread *off* comp.security.ssh. It
no longer has anything to do with SSH.
--
Richard Silverman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:09:23 -
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:41:37 -0500, Seán Ó Donnchadha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
Despite your squirming, Sean, there is simply no way that Windows can
have two versions of the same library available simultaneously. This is
the subtle but key point which this discussion revolves around.
This "key point" is completely false, Troll M., and I suspect you know that
but would rather lie than agree with someone who doesn't want Microsoft
blown off the face of the planet. Aside from file naming conventions and
Windows' lack of symbolic link support - at the OS level - DLLs work exactly
the same way in Windows as shared libraries work in any modern Unix-like OS.
Two different processes may use two different versions of a given library,
"may" perhaps, "do" not likely.
That's the greater issue here. Unix has a longer culturaly
history of attempting to follow sane guidelines and a
longer history of useful tools actually being in place
(like long filenames).
[deletia]
The legacy of WinDOS extends back to when the only filesystem
available to it was FAT16, and it really shows at times.
--
...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/
Linux-Advocacy Digest #432
Linux-Advocacy Digest #432, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 14:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Business (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Bob Hauck)
Re: Opsss there goes another one. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why don't we see more advocacy for Linux/MPI? (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Interesting article (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Dan Mercer)
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Business
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:41:26 GMT
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:03:31 +, Edward Rosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Aaron Kulkis"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike wrote:
"Aaron Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hey, Drestin
Still pimping out your wife?
Aaron: People who live in glass houses...
Do I have a website devoted to selling nude photos of my wife like
Drestin does his?
a) yes B) NO
Was it his wife or some random model?
His wife. If Deja was online you could look it up 8-
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 23 Feb 2001 17:43:08 GMT
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:20:55 +, Edward Rosten wrote:
OK. I'll concede, it was a poor argument. I suppose that I should think
before I post more often :-)
I believe what you're saying is that if C is a subset of A and B is a
subset of A then C may or may not be a subset of B. Do I take this
correctly?
More or less, yes.
Under the definition:
A (shell) pipe takes the output of one process and puts it in to the
input of another process.
Well, that's better, we've got a decent definition.
I agree with your conclusion, I was mostly criticising the argument.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: 23 Feb 2001 18:41:34 +0100
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just noticed I have 1000 times more ram than my first PC/XT, it is a dual
processor 600 MHZ system which is a an aggregate 250 times faster. My first
hard disk was 20Meg, I have an aggregate 2300 times more disk space.
It has been an amazing 16 years of computing.
My first machine was an ATARI 400 with 16kB which I later upgraded to
64kB. There was no hard disk; you used cartridges for programs (one of
which was an assembler, and a _different_ one of which was BASIC), or a
tape reader.
Then in 1985 came an ATARI ST, the first machine with 1MB RAM for 1k
USD. Still no hard disk (I used a 512kB RAMdisk and the rest was more
than OK for Fortran development).
Now thanks to my institute I use a laptop with 800 MHz, 256 MB RAM, and
11GB hard disk. The ATARI ST was 10 to 100 times slower than a DEC VAX
with my linear code (one-D). This laptop is almost as fast as two CPUs
of our T3E (which was bought with 600 MHz Alphas in 1997). My 3-D
turbulence code runs at full resolution (225 MB in core) in 80 hours (on
the T3E it is 8 hours on 16 CPUs).
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:46:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:32:18 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nick Condon wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Rosten) wrote in 972j0q$jm6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Aaron Kulkis"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LOL! Robin Hood was a common thief.
No...that was the TAX COLLECTOR.
Robin Hood merely returned to the people what was wrongfully stolen from
them by Little John's tax collectors.
Robin Hood was a common thief turned in to a legend.
Little John was one of the Merry Men according to that legend. Are you
refering to she Sherrif of Nittingham?
Nottingham.
Indeed.
Linux-Advocacy Digest #433
Linux-Advocacy Digest #433, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Into the abyss... ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
Re: Interesting article (Steve Mading)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: State of linux distros ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: State of linux distros ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Mark Bratcher)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Peter Hayes)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Peter Hayes)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (Peter Hayes)
Re: Who is the most heavily killfiled person on cola? (Steve Mading)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Interesting article (Bob Hauck)
Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Charlie Ebert)
From: "Masha Ku'Inanna" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Into the abyss...
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:06:14 -0500
Reply-To: "Masha Ku'Inanna" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have yet to see software on and of the UNIX environments I have
tinkered
with that automatically refused to let you do something. WinME would not
let
me update certain drivers because of their "driver signing" feature that
keeps one from installing "rogue applications" or whatever. I had to
wrestle
with WinME to install a perfectly fine driver for a Soundblaster card
from a
Win98 CDROM.
Since I develop audio device drivers, I have to install them long before
the "signed driver" feature is available. However, it can be overridden
and it certainly isn't as hard as you make it out to be.
No, it is quite simple to do, I agree.
That it exists at all was quite jarring for someone who knew what he was
doing, and suddenly had his OS tell him, "Um.. no." That first, it needed to
be signed by Microsoft, BUT this "protection" feature could be disabled.
One of my friends at CompUSA, a tech whom I'd worked with many times
explained it simply that Windows does a great job at assuming it is
smarter
than the user. UNIX does exactly what you tell it. Windows does what it
thinks you wanted it to do.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Windows ME and later have added
features to prevent you trashing system files, but I don't see that "it
assumes it knows more than you" and acts accordingly.
Those new "features" suddenly made it diffiucult to run certain versions of
Norton AV to clean up a "system" file that was infected. Even though the
virus was able to overwrite said system file, Norton was not allowed to
overwrite it and clean it because it was an incompatible version with ME's
system-protection feature.
So I had to get the updated version.
I simply do not see the merits to "value-added features" that force you to
have to "upgrade" your other software just to run on that new platform.
When you have to wrestle with an OS just to get an upgrade to work
correctly, when one application installs under Win2k Pro but refuses to
install on Win2k Server (Norton systemworks 2001) because it is incompatible
(Win2k Server will not run all of the software that Pro will run even though
they are of the same exact family of NT based Windows), when that same
application has considerably less features when installed on 2k Pro vs
WinME, when at a system-lock you cannot regain control of your system
without having to force a reboot, even on a "multi-user, miltitasking"
version of Windows, I'd say the OS is a lot less transparent that it needs
to be and is over-riding quite a bit of control from the user, and is
"acting accordingly."
I think Windows does exactly the same as UNIX. In UNIX you can do rm *
and delete everything. In Windows, you can use Explorer to wipe
everything, just as easily.
rm * will not erase everything. The so-called "system protection" feature
for Windows was added long after UNIX had already had the same kind of
protection for years. Unless you were root/had root access you simply could
not completely hose a UNIX machine with a simple command or an accidental
mouse-click.
Under WinME, playing the part of a completely naive non-admin user for
shits and giggles, I right rubber-band selected a few folders in the C:
folder, right clicked and then clicked "delete".
It let me erase quite a bit of it, until those 'protected files' kicked in.
It did not matter. At the subsequent reboot, the system was incredibly
unstable. It protected 'key' windows files, but did nothing for Office,
Norton, Netscape or any other application, nor did it protect data that I'd
produced
Linux-Advocacy Digest #434
Linux-Advocacy Digest #434, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting Google Facts! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Interesting Google Facts! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Woofbert)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Interesting article ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Where is suse 7.1? ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ ("Goober")
Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Red Hat Fisher Beta (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Red Hat Fisher Beta (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Kulkis the newbie, its official! ("surrender")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Interesting Google Facts!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:08:48 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Donal K. Fellows wrote:
Charlie Ebert wrote:
Do a search on "Windows" - You see 24,900,000 references.
How are you filtering out non-computer uses of the term?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellowshttp://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I could even declare myself a religion, if that'd help.
-- Mark Loy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm giving them credit for all the Linux saches in lower botswana...
And if you buy that, I have a bridge to sell you.
But interesting point. There are several types of Windows and only
one kind of Linux.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN****GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Interesting Google Facts!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:35:11 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jasper wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:24:02 -0800, "Paolo Ciambotti"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It could also be 40,200,000 archived messages pleading for help
with installing Linux. But even that is a good general indication of uptake for
Linux. How goes that proverb, "Bad publicity is better than no
publicity"?
You should visit the "Operating System Sucks-Rules-O-Meter" site for an
interesting evaluation of similar findings.
http://srom.zgp.org/
Ciao.
Another interesting site:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/January/os.html
I find it extremely fascinating to learn that Total Unix lost
over a million users from January 2000 thru January 2001 yet
we all know this wasn't the case. Sun is doing better
business now then they have in the last 10 years.
Further, how can you take these statistics seriously when
you have a block of over 12,000,000 OS's listed as unidentified
for January, 2001.
Hell, even back in January 2000 they had over 8 million unidentified...
If you add up the total computers you see 350 million world wide tally'd
for January 2001.
Then if you go back and tally up the TOTAL count they have for January 2000
you find these people added up 550 million computers.
My question to you is how do you go from 550 million a year ago to
less today of 350 million?
And anybody can see this.
Then I did ownership research on www.thecounter.com and came to the
conclusion that www.thecounter.com has a long tree of ownership leading
right back thru duke.com which is a know fanatical windows supporter.
This counter is totally worthless. Futher it fraudlent.
And it's so silly about the way it lies the *AVERAGE* person with
a calculator can indeed blow holes in it in just 5 minutes.
But it takes *YOU* the reader to use your brain and figure this out.
Add up the same numbers I did. Go backwards in the privacy policy statements
until you go backwards the 5-6 companies I did and find it is indeed owned
by duke.com and come to your own fucking conclusion.
The conclusion you should come to is your spreading monopoly wintroll crap.
It is my feeling thru internet research that Linux is approaching the 50% mark
this year. That means for every 2 Windows box you find @ WW, there will be one
Linux box.
The evidence is almost inescapable.
You can't generate 40 million web pages on Linux without having the need for
the traffic. And that exceeds windows.
So a 2 for 1 right now is a very conservative figure for Linux world
population.
And THERE HAS to be a reason Microsoft is bitching. They know how to lie,
they know their markets, they know their loosing their markets to Linux.
Otherwise, why the crap about open source and GPL lately.
I think it is wonderful news and I'm still believing by 2005 we will know
who the next globally
Linux-Advocacy Digest #435
Linux-Advocacy Digest #435, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 17:13:05 EST Contents: WANT TO MAKE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS (DSpeedy7996) Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: Into the abyss... (Matthew Gardiner) Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: State of linux distros (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Peter Hayes) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DSpeedy7996) Date: 23 Feb 2001 21:50:59 GMT Subject: WANT TO MAKE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS Message Added: Re: Re: WANT TO MAKE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS The following information was added to the message board: == == Name: David Goad E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: WANT TO MAKE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS Body of Message: : : : $$$ WANT TO MAKE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WITH : : ONLY A SIX DOLLAR INVESTMENT?!!! READ ON... PERFECTLY LEGAL!!! : : $$ : : A little while back, I was browsing through newsgroups and came across an article similar to : : this that said you could make thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial : : investment of $6.00! So I thought, "Yeah right, this must be a scam", but like most of us, I : : was curious, so I kept reading. Anyway, it said that you send $1.00 to each of the 6 names : : and address stated in the article. You then place your own name and address in the bottom of : : the list at #6, and post the article in at least 200 newsgroups or send bulk mail to a couple : : hundred people (the more widely distributed this is, though, the more money both you and I : : can make!!!) No catch, that was it. So after thinking it over, and talking to a few people : : first, I thought about trying it. I figured: "what have I got to lose except 6 stamps and : : $6.00, right?" Then I invested the measly $6.00. Well GUESS WHAT!?... within 7 days, I : : started getting money in the mail! I was shocked! I figured it would end soon, but the money : : just kept coming in. In my first week, I made about $25.00. By the end of the second week I : : had made a total of over $1,000.00! In the third week I had over $10,000.00 and it's still : : growing. This is now my fourth week and I have made a total of just over $42,000.00 and it's : : still coming in rapidly. It's certainly worth $6.00, and 6 stamps, I have spent more than : : that on the lottery!! Let me tell you how this works and most importantly, WHY it works... : : Also, make sure you print a copy of this article NOW, so you can get the information off of : : it as you need it. I promise you that if you follow the directions exactly, that you will : : start making more money than you thought possible by doing something so easy! I'm on my way : : to trying it and see how the results come out. Suggestion: Read this entire message : : carefully! (print it out or download it.) Follow the simple directions and watch the money : : come in! It's easy. It's legal. And, your investment is only $6.00 (Plus postage). : : IMPORTANT: This is not a rip-off; it is not indecent; it is not illegal; and it is 99% no : : risk - it really works! If all of the following instructions are adhered to, you will receive : : extraordinary dividends. : : PLEASE NOTE: Please follow these directions EXACTLY, and $50,000 or more can be yours in 20 : : to 60 days. This program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity of the : : participants. Please continue its success by carefully adhering to the instructions. you will : : now become part of the Mail Order business. In this business your product is not solid and : : tangible, it's a service. You are in the business of developing Mailing Lists. Many large : : corporations are happy to pay big bucks for quality lists. However, the money made from the : : mailing lists is secondary to the income which is made from people like you and me asking to : : be included in that list. Here are the 3 easy steps to success: : : STEP 1: Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on each piece of paper "PLEASE : : PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST." Now get 6 US $1.00 bills and place ONE inside EACH of the 6 : : pieces of paper so the bill will not be seen through the envelope (to prevent thievery). : : Next, place one paper in each of the 6 envelopes and seal them. You should now have 6 sealed : : envelopes, each with a piece of paper stating the above phrase, your name and address, and a : : $1.00 bill. What you are doing is creating a service. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL! You are : : requesting a legitimate service and you are paying for it! Like most of us I was a
Linux-Advocacy Digest #436
Linux-Advocacy Digest #436, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: State of linux distros (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (Mig)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American Activities
Committee (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Into the abyss... ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
NT vs *nix performance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("B.B.")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Peter Hayes)
Re: Stability of 2.4.1? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Who said NT was stable ! ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("B.B.")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Woofbert)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Woofbert)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Shane Phelps)
Re: The Windows guy. (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Shane Phelps)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:13:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:29:37 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Reefer wrote:
Linsux is dead.
That's why it scares Gates, Allchin, and Steve Baaawllmer.
I can see the marquees now.
Linux.
The OS That Wouldn't Die.
The OS that can install on your machine, coexisting with other
operating systems, and utilize every ounce of power available
from the hardware.
The OS that can do everything Win2k can do, and more. (Except
be proprietary.)
The OS that puts a real computer on your desktop, not some
glorified child's toy with glitzy shadowed mouse pointers
and beautifully-disappearing submenus.
The OS that doesn't cost extra and require a nifty neato fancy
IDE to start developing programs. (Unless one really wants to.)
The OS that scares the shit out of proprietary megalomaniacial
monopolistic types everywhere.
The OS That Bill And Steve Just Can't Kill Even After Trying To
FUD It To Death.
...
Coming soon to a computer near you. :-)
(You think it'll sell? :-) Or am I too late already? )
"dev null" [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev i meddelandet
news:9737j1$b6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Culled somewhere off of www.devx.com this a.m.
In spite of the fact that Mandrake boasts that it is the hottest Linux
distributor in retail sales, its retail product is a loss leader. SuSE has
laid off two-thirds of its U.S. employees. TurboLinux is cutting back on
its
workforce and may soon wed Linuxcare to refocus its efforts onto services.
Stormix, a commercial distributor that based its offering on Debian, has
recently filed for bankruptcy. Corel is getting nowhere with its Linux
distribution. In other words, most Linux distributions, even the ones
whose
market share is growing each year, are concluding that they can't make
money
selling Linux.
Wow, get that! Companies sprouting up like weeds, trying to turn a profit
on
a free product by adding value only. --dubious value at that. And there
is
only SO much value one can add to a linux distro or the penquinistas start
braying like donkeys in heat. See Corel for what can happen when they
think
you have 'window-fied' linux!
I'm STILL wondering how they ever thought that they COULD be viable.
dot com madness, something like mad-cow disease I think.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 18d:03h:40m actually running Linux.
Yes, uptime wall clock aren't in synch; I don't know why.
--
From: Mig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:14:32 +0100
Edward Rosten wrote:
Yep. The first binary digital computer was purely mechanical and ran at
1Hz. Quite a remarkabe machine, it even did floating point arithmetic. It
never worked very well (it was built by a single bloke in his parents
living room) but the later electromechanical versions did work very well.
The guy was an unsung genius.
http://irb.cs.tu-berlin.de/~zuse/Konrad_Zuse/en/Rechner_Z1.html
Look at the other stuff on the site about him too (there are also many
other sites about him). He invented pipelining as well, not to mention
the ADC and a host of other things including the first High Level
Language.
Yes, Konrad Zuse is the man!
He's not so unsung here.. i remenber he was creditted for the first
electric computer and Babbage for the first mechanic when i was studying.
I think americans normally
Linux-Advocacy Digest #437
Linux-Advocacy Digest #437, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Byron A Jeff)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Edwin")
Re: Is innovation a blessing? (was Interesting article) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Byron A Jeff)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Peter Hayes)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Interesting article ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (Michael Vester)
Re: Kulis revelation! ("mmnnoo")
Re: Why don't we see more advocacy for Linux/MPI? ("mmnnoo")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("B.B.")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:05:59 -0500
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:58:52 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
Wrong...Because the Demoncrook party has ALWAYS been in the business of
protecting the financial interests of the socio-economic elite in this
country.
That's why Bush's plan primarily benefits the richest 1%, right ? And it's
Wrong, on three counts.
Aaron,
A long time ago we agreed to disagree on this subject. However I can't
resist responding.
First:
Suppose you earned $2,000,000 this year...putting you into the
top 0.1% of income. Would that mean that you are one of the
top 0.1% richest people in the country?
Nope. It's the difference between total net worth and total net/gross income
for one year.
To clarify: B. Gates would be one of the richest people in the world even if
he never earned another dime in his lifetime.
Point taken.
Come on...you have a strong, math background, worthy of someon
Clue for the clueless. The slope of a curve is NOT the same
thing as the area beneath it.
This is why SALES TAXES are far more ethical than income taxes.
Here's the problem with sales taxes (which by definition taxes one's
consumption instead of one's income): its normally presented as a flat tax.
Its regressiveness impacts the folks with the least disposable income the
most.
If you proffered a progressive sales tax, I might bite:
1) All sales tax on the first X dollars spent exempted.
2) Sales tax becomes steeper as you spend more total dollars.
3) Luxury taxes on items over a certain amount.
4) No income or capital gains taxes.
This might work. One is taxed on what one spends, and one is taxed more as
one spends more. No tax at all unless you spend it.
Might work.
Second:
Under Bush's plan, the top wage earners STILL pay the higest tax rates.
Not really relevant for two reasons:
1) Lots of tax loopholes.
2) The resulting disposable income is still significant.
Go back to your $2,000,000 income earner. Even after paying the top 28%
tax, the over $1 million is disposable income is infinitely more than
the thousands of $5 earners who has little or no disposable income yet
are still being taxed.
That's why I kind of like the progressive sales tax, because it can target
those with the most disposable income. Also it'll spur savings/investing
across the board because those dollars won't be taxed.
Third:
Do you have some particular problem with tax-relief being proportional
to how much taxes a person pays?
Yes. You knew that was coming.
Like many Democrats, I do believe in income redistribution. Forced charity
is probably what you'd call it. I believe in it because income and net worth
acquistion isn't fair. I know you believe that if you work hard, you'll become
rich, or at least comfortable. Those who do not or are incapable of raising
their standard of living you have labeled as lazy or stupid in the past. But
we are not all born into the same circumstance. We don't all have the
opportunity to be that $2,000,000 earner, or Mark Cuban, or Gates. We don't
all get a chance to inherit, like a Rockerfeller. Many of the richest
people in the world became that way be being married to, family of, or
children to someone who built the fortune. They got all the benefit without
doing the hard work. Income/asset acquisition isn't fair, not by a long shot.
So yes I do believe that taxation according to disposable income, or net worth
should in fact be a bit unfair. so as to provide benefit to the maximum number
of people, instead of benefitting a select few, who in fact need the benefit
the least.
So I do have a problem with any equal taxation (flat rate). Through exemption,
proportial taxation, and targeted refunds there should always be a positive
flow of dollars
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Bob Hauck)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Bob Hauck)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Charlie Ebert)
Something Seemingly Simple. (Bloody Viking)
LWN summarises Microsoft anti-source stance and has a new column ("Adam Warner")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (mlw)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Roy.Culley)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT vs *nix performance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (Brent R)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: State of linux distros (Aaron Kulkis)
From: "Joseph T. Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: 24 Feb 2001 02:34:35 GMT
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I just noticed I have 1000 times more ram than my first PC/XT, it is a dual
: processor 600 MHZ system which is a an aggregate 250 times faster. My first
: hard disk was 20Meg, I have an aggregate 2300 times more disk space.
: It has been an amazing 16 years of computing.
It has indeed.
In fact you're probably understating the improvement in CPU speeds,
since today's CPUs execute far more instructions per clock cycle than
did those of the 80s.
Joe
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:43:41 GMT
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:06:27 +1100, Shane Phelps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob Hauck wrote:
How do we get him [Chad] nominated for KOTM?
I thought he did a pretty good job of self-nomination with his Black
Knight impersonation on c.s.s :-)
Just a flesh wound! Come back and fight like a man!
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:43:42 GMT
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:57:30 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty sure one can even run a window manager "over the wire" (I
wouldn't want to, because my bandwidth sucks) and get reasonably
good results.
I once ran a Motif GUI builder on one box, the window manager on
another, and displayed it all on a third (I won't go into why I did
this, but I had reasons). Everything worked fine over 10 Mbit Ethernet.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:00:24 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Giuliano Colla wrote:
nuxx wrote:
"J Sloan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
nuxx wrote:
No luck about it. If you apply datacentre type methodologies in design
and
change control as you would with any Unix server, NT is very reliable.
Some
Oracle processes tend to leak memory which would eventually cause a
problem
but they are killed and re-started for cold backup purposes on my
systems,
so the OS stays up all the time. Recent hardware used is stock Intel
server
boards with Adaptec hardware RAID. No BSODs, no crashes, nothing
special.
Sorry, we simply have not found this to be the case.
It's probably best you leave it to people that know what they are doing.
It's always been a source of wonder for me how Windows is so simple and
user friendly when they try to sell it to you, and requires experts in
order not to crash, once you have it.
On the contrary Unix, Linux, AIX etc., are represented as very difficult
and abstruse, but users who can keep a Linux box running for one year
without problems are apparently not competent enough to keep a Windows
box running for a couple of days.
There's something in this logic which I fail to grasp.
Could you please clarify it for me?
What is even more interesting is how experts from Microsoft
can't even manage to come up with a W2k server combination
which adequately replaces FreeBSD at HotMail.
Or how about the time they got all their source code stolen
from Microsoft Corporate HQ. For 1.5 months bandits continued
to download source code for the famed Windows XP formerly code
named Whistler, right under their
Linux-Advocacy Digest #439
Linux-Advocacy Digest #439, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (J Sloan)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Tom Wilson")
From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:23:39 -0500
Gerry wrote:
Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most any country. Law-abiding citizens are not the ones commiting
the crimes.
I think your view of the world it too polarized.
Quit trying to view it through frosted glass, idiot.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.mac.com/gbeggs/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.GerryICQ.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
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: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:25:46 -0500
Nick Condon wrote:
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
A bystander? Not sure I'd agree with that being taken as anything
other than murder. Criminals still have rights, even when they abuse
the rights of others. This is because we live in (what we like to
think of as) a free society, and is IMHO one of the main features of
one...
Did you know that when coming into a situation in progress, the
police shoot the WRONG person about 40% of the time. Conversely,
armed-bystanders kill the wrong person less than 5% of the time.
Sounds like an argument for unarmed police.
The best situation is what England just abandoned:
Unarmed police, serving within a well-armed populace.
Police don't stop crime...they INVESTIGATE it after it happens.
It's up to THE PEOPLE to stop crime.
--
Nick
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
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
Linux-Advocacy Digest #440
Linux-Advocacy Digest #440, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 03:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (J Sloan)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (J Sloan)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop (Tim Hanson)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Martin Ambuhl)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (J Sloan)
Re: Into the abyss... (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Brent Pathakis)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Mark Duell")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
From: J Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:12:52 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
I've been doing some reading on Java when I encountered this article:
http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_24.htm
It's a very interesting article, on a very interesting site. But what really
captured my attention was point three, about scalability.
Qoute
...industry standard TPC-C benchmark. This benchmark shows that a $745,000
COM+ system can process more than 56 million transactions per day, a higher
rate than any documented web-based commerce system processes today. In order
to meet this level of scalability with a UNIX system, you will have to spend
at least $2,250,000.
/Qoute
If so, shame on the Unix vendors for such poor bang
for the buck. However, a single Unix system will have
a MUCH lower tco than hundreds of windows pcs.
In any event, the picture will change dramatically when
the Linux based results start appearing, as in specweb.
A web-based benchmark was recently conducted by Doculabs and PCWeek. [6, 7]
This benchmark measured the number of web pages delivered to client browsers
in a web commerce environment and the cost of the underlying hardware and
software for both Microsoft and UNIX platforms. The Doculab report [6] is
informative for any company planning a web commerce system.
It's hilarious that they carefully avoided the specweb
results - I wonder why? could it be that the results
would not support their agenda?
If we add together the hardware and software costs of the various platforms
in the Doculabs benchmark, we find that a $208,000 Windows DNA system
delivered 3,500 web pages per second, whereas the fastest measured UNIX
system (a Progress system) delivered only 1,360 web pages per second at a
cost of over $500,000. The average UNIX system cost $594,459 and delivered
1009 pages per second, less than one third the Windows DNA performance at
more than two and a half times the cost.
This is obviously a suspicious study, since the "fastest measured
Unix system" sounds quite slow compared even to my low end
Linux servers - again, it sounds like a report with an agenda, and
carefully avoiding unpleasant facts that might not speak well of the
value proposition of windows as a server.
And these tests were run on NT 4.0. A later, different benchmark run by
PCWeek clocked Windows 2000 at between 25% and 100% faster than Windows NT
4.0 [8]. If these numbers hold true for a Doculabs benchmark scenario, then
we would expect to see a $208,000 Windows 2000 DNA system delivering
anyplace from 4375 to 7000 pages per second, whereas a $594,459 UNIX system
will be straining to deliver one quarter of that.
And oddly enough, a $6000 Linux server easily outperforms
this suspiciously slow and overpriced "unix system", and also
compares favorably with the $208,000 windows pc server farm.
The Doculabs benchmark predicted that in real-world scenarios, UNIX system
web servers will be able to process over 10,000 concurrent real-world users
while maintaining an acceptable response time, whereas a Microsoft Windows
DNA implementation will handle upwards of 100,000 simultaneous users. Ten
times the number of users for about one third the system cost! Now that's
scalability!
Now that's hilarious, and if you believe those obviously
bogus numbers, I've got a bridge I want to sell you, too.
Cheers,
jjs
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:13:46 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J
