Linux-Advocacy Digest #445
Linux-Advocacy Digest #445, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 04:13:06 EDT Contents: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Les Mikesell) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Les Mikesell) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Tom Wilson) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Les Mikesell) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Tom Wilson) Re: Cold feet or Reality Check? (Tom Wilson) Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Marada C. Shradrakaii) Re: Linux has one chance left. (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Tom Wilson) Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (Tom Wilson) Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (Tom Wilson) Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Tom Wilson) Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Tom Wilson) Pete's Linux printer problems (Donn Miller) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Edward Rosten) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal) Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 compatible w/MSOffice 97/2000? (Edward Rosten) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Edward Rosten) From: Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:09:39 GMT T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... The API is the least abstract part of the program. It is specifically what the components *must* use to correctly interoperate. [...] Oh, yea. Real concrete. Not abstract at all. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. If you understood anything about programming you would know that you must use specific program statements to invoke the functions in a library. Those statements are the API and are not abstract at all. If you don't use them exactly as required, the thing on the other side of the interface will not work. If you understood anything besides programming, you would know that none of that makes it concrete. Change as little as one character as you use it in the program and it won't work. That's about as concrete as it gets. As you use it in the program == as you use the library. Change ANY character in the API, and as long as it is changed in both library and program, there is NO difference at all, am I right? For any instance of the library, the api used in the program must match exactly. Thus, the characters are meaningless, and the API is 'metaphysical', i.e. not concrete at all in any way, regardless of how definite its specification, how heavy its documentation, or how strictly enforced is its contract. For every instance it is concrete. It may change between versions but the point of an API is to allow independent changes on either side and changing the API itself (other than additions) breaks all existing code it is not done lightly and is generally seen as an admission of poor design in the earlier version(s). Regardless of the possibility of versional changes, the api used to access any single version is concrete. The FSF has pointed out that an API such as Win32 or POSIX is, itself, far more concrete than an API that only one library supports. And if that one library is GPL, they have claimed that using the API is, analytically, using the library. There is only one complete implementation of the Win32 library. Anything written to Win32 is as much a derivative of it as anything using a GPL library. These are exactly identical situations. No shit. Really? Sometimes I swear you seem to purposely forget EVERYTHING that I say from one post to the next. You're not really that stupid, are you? I mean, I would like to think you're just pretending. If its some sort of medical thing, let me know, and I'll forward my apologies in my next post. You keep posting contradictory things. No one could possibly keep track of them all. Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- From: Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:24:08 GMT Jeffrey Siegal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Les Mikesell wrote: Do YOU know any way to write software that uses a library without using the library? (Aside from the legally non-existent concept of an API, of course, an separate argument I am even now pursuing. Feel free to pile on, but
Linux-Advocacy Digest #446
Linux-Advocacy Digest #446, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 07:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Greg Cox) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Edward Rosten) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Edward Rosten) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Edward Rosten) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Edward Rosten) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner) Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: IE (Michael Pye) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Cold feet or Reality Check? (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Linux in college high school (Robert Morelli) From: Greg Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4 Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 08:10:05 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 09:08:22 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 21:50:31 snip Max, you really have to stretch to maintain your Microsoft and all of its works are evil and the worst products anyone has ever produced attitude. I have no such attitude, despite my rhetoric. If I did, would I be using Microsoft products? ;-D Um, you've stated many times that you're forced to use Microsoft products and that's why you haven't switched to the OS that you spend so much of your life promoting. Not precisely, but close enough. The only conclusion I can draw is that you don't really believe your own rhetoric that you post here. If that's the case then I've completely misjudged you. You're just here for the entertainment. My apologies... I honestly haven't the foggiest idea where you would draw that conclusion from. Perhaps you're confabulating this ridiculously metaphysical evil and all their works horse-shit with the actual unlawful activities MS has performed, or discombobulated the idea of 'consumers being forced' with 'me being forced'. No, your statement I have no such attitude, despite my rhetoric. If I did, would I be using Microsoft products? indicates to me that your real thoughts and feelings don't necessarily coincide with what you have written in these newsgroups. The only purpose I can see for doing this is to entertain yourself (probably by seeing what kind of reaction you can get from your postings). Try this one on for size, if you're in the mood for entertainment: Consumers are forced by circumstances, not by Microsoft, to use Windows. Yet Microsoft is legally responsible for those circumstances, and thus is guilty of monopolizing even though they never forced anyone to buy their product, ever. Substitute even if for even though, and you don't change the truth or the meaning of the statement. Nor the legal ramifications; it isn't a question of evil, it is a question of criminal conduct. I would agree with you if Microsoft deliberately created those circumstances and did it with the intent to monopolize. I find the whole Sherman Act bothersome because it's vague to the point where a company can't point to a specific time where its product became a monopoly. Without that, it doesn't know positively that the rules of behaviour it has to follow have changed because it now holds a monopoly until it is actually hauled into court and convicted of monopolizing. Even then, it may disagree with the conviction simply because it disagrees with the court on the definition of the relevent market. In Microsoft's case the market Windows participates in could have been defined to be all OSs that run on microcomputers, or all OSs designed to interact with only one user at a time on a single screen/keyboard, or all OSs reguardless of the hardware involved or the normal function of the OS (workstation/server/etc.). Depending on the relevent market either a specific version or line (such as the 9x/ME) of Windows holds a monopoly or it doesn't. Personally, I think Judge Jackson made a mistake by linking the relevent market to hardware (80x86) rather than to the intended use of the OS (interact with only one user at a time on a single screen/keyboard). -- [EMAIL
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 08:13:02 EDT Contents: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Mig) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: OT Movies (pip) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (pip) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (pip) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner) Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Mart van de Wege) Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Matthew Gardiner) Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) From: Mig [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 12:32:39 +0200 Jan Johanson wrote: Mig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9df3ph$k60$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... mlw wrote: Jan Johanson wrote: [snipped] Actually, it really good to see that stuff. I'll tell you why. RedHat 6.2 does not have the 2.4 kernel, it has 2.2. Some major SMP performance improvements were done in 2.4. Wrong! It was a 2.4 kernel used on the RH 6.2 box for the Tux test. Thank you for confirming that it was indeed the very best Linux has to offer that was beaten by 2 year old IIS. Youre so full of crap. One place you indicate that the results are not comparable because of hardware differences - then a bit later youre saying that one beat the other. So what is it ? As a W2K user experience slowliness frequently ( i have described this earlier) and suddenly having IE crash 3 4 times a day i can say that that system i use at work cant do anything in a fast way. Of course there is a cheat here as allways. Take a look at this removed baby and the compare with the actual results. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/ res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html A - MiG, always trying for deceptive advertising. Instead of looking at your google cache, why not look at what is currently posted for the real story at http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html SPEC has determined that this result was not in compliance with the SPECweb99 run and reporting rules. Specifically, the result did not meet the 3 month availability requirement in the SPECweb99 run rules due to a change in availability of Microsoft SWC 3.0. BS.. they pulled it because they had a worser result on substantialy better hardware. They improved once again the hardware and got a better result. So what.? Unless the hardware is comaprable or prefereably identical you cant compare the one to the other. See, MS and Spec play by the rules. All of MS's money couldn't buy them out of this. SWC3 was changed and improved dramatically after the last beta and the release date changed. Fair enough, previous results were disqualified - we would all demand as much. You would have complained about this it the initial results where better than Tux. They never played by the rules as has been shown time after time. What pisses you all off is that the new SWC is faster yet (even while still in only RC form) and the new results prove it clearly. I could not care less about SWC - why should i botter? Improtant differences from old benchmark where does it say you can't use different hardware from one benchmark run to the next? doh! Then why do you compare them? Hehehe - Even the old test could not beat tux on a much better setup. Lets also not forget that it was not IIS that was tested but their webcache version 3 that holds the requested pages in memory You mean like the way TUX holds requested pages in memory acting as a cache while also being a web server? repeat after me: tux lost to IIS - you'll get used to it... Ok.. i think i have it.. you been drinking. Sober up before you post- then you will not contracit your self. -- From: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:33:31 +1200 Reliablity during hardware failures? Performance (you keep saying clusters when if you knew the difference between clustering and load balancing you'd suddenly realize it's load balancing
Linux-Advocacy Digest #448
Linux-Advocacy Digest #448, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 10:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Macman) Re: Windows makes good coasters (Magus) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Mart van de Wege) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (mlw) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (mlw) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (mlw) Re: Linux has one chance left. (Tom Wilson) Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Chad Everett) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Chad Everett) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Nigel Feltham) Re: Microsoft Windows for Linux (Brian Craft) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Bob Hauck) From: Macman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 11:52:16 GMT In article 9dia41$mnc$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien wrote: And even then, we are talking about general trend in *new* applications being developped. What Apple need to do is to discourage any further development on OS9, and porting everything to OSX. They are trying to do that very thing. Not enough, you will still have plenty of legacy applications that would need OS9. And you'll have them for *years* to come. And the people that need to run them can run then under OS 9 alone or Classic. Let me translate it to PC terms. You want to run this Windows application? Reboot to Windows or use VMWare. *Not* a good idea. Do you get this? I never disputed the fact that you can run OS9 applications. I said that it's a bloody stupid way to do that. Not to mention that it's horribly inefficent. [snip] But users CAN use their legacy apps. Thats what Classic is all about. And vendors are going about either carbonixing or writing Cocoa versions. Good, that is what they did on the DOS-Windows transfer, want to guess when people stopped using DOS application? Hint, the date is sometimes in the *future*. I'm not speaking about whatever the can/can't, I'm talking about the inefficencies in the way Mac OS X does it backward compatability. Do you believe that if you say this enough times it will come true? Classic apps under Mac OS X perform at very close to their speeds under Mac OS 9. (granted, the UI is a bit slower, but that's true for Cocoa apps, too, so it's not a Classic issue). So where is this vaunted inefficiency you're talking about. By any reasonable standard, Classic is a very efficient way to run legacy apps. -- From: Magus [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:46:53 -0400 T. Max Devlin wrote: Wow - that was really intelligent and quit an awesome comeback. Concise, complete, and correct. What more could you ask for? Another 'e'. -- From: Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 12:08:50 GMT GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Daniel Johnson wrote: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message It may seem that, but these filters are written by the end user or administrator. See what I mean about Windows being better for the desktop? :D Hardly. I get more flexibility from this than letting windows munge things up. If you think that desktop market is composed of masses of people who can and will write *print filters*- or even configure them- you are quite out of touch. [snip] -- From: Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 12:21:45 GMT Edward Rosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9dis2j$bia$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... And WINE sucks. Badly. Run some windows apps with it. That's because the Windows API is buggy and poorly documented. IIRC Linux/PPC can run MacOS programs rather beter than Wine can run Windows programs. -Ed It's because the Windows API is mind boggling large, and Microsoft keeps adding
Linux-Advocacy Digest #449
Linux-Advocacy Digest #449, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 10:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Roy Culley) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Roy Culley) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Roy Culley) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Roy Culley) Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Roy Culley) Re: OT Movies (mmnnoo) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Nigel Feltham) Re: Linux has one chance left. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (Brian Craft) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: OT Movies ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Ayende Rahien) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Ayende Rahien) Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (James Philips) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Chad Myers) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:48:48 GMT On Sat, 12 May 2001 06:52:45 GMT, Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does less than steller mean? Details! Details! Blue screens. Low latency is the big advantage for me. Ah yes, latency. Another area where DirectX sucks. We are getting 2ms which is better than ASIO can manage and way better than MME. The drivers are stable under Win2k but so-so under Win98SE/ME. How are they so-so? Details! Many people reporting blue screens, lockups and stuttering audio. They run very smooth under Win2k for the most part. Flatfish -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:20:41 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article 9dia3r$mnc$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jan Johanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:3afc9fcb$0$41634$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... 180 days? what a joke, I expect 900z like uptimes of 35 years, not this poofter 180 days or so. SAY! here is a thought. Unix has been around for 35 years right? Can you show me a unix system with an uptime of 35 years? How about 30 years? 25? 20? 10? Can't?? What?! You mean these puppies can't even stay up that long? I mean, W2K boxes have been up and running for as long as their has been a W2K - Unix can't claim that? Don't know of any linux boxes that have been running for 5 years do you? So, they crash that often eh? (getting the picture are you finally?) LOL! Grief, you people are pathetic. Microsoft has lost the Internet server market. Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous record. It doesn't look any better this year. IIS is the worst offender of all. Now they are sticking it in the kernel! Talk about being desparate. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley) Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:57:30 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) writes: On Fri, 11 May 2001 17:59:46 +0200, Peter Köhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike wrote: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... So, whats missing? Where is the huge gap between Wordperfect Suite and MS Office Pro? Wrong question, Matthew. Similar to asking what Win2k can do that Linux can't, it misses the point that Office is the dominant product today. The primary question you have to answer is why people use MS Office. Ignore the humorous answers (Because they like looking at blue screens!) and the stupid ones (Because they're stupid sheep who just do whatever Bill tells them to) and all the conspiracy theories, and you'll be left with a list of real reasons why people aren't flocking to the competition. You might not like the answer, but at least you'll know. Well, I do not use it myself, but the guy I´m working with does. And he keeps telling me that for him the *only* reason is, that he receives documents in Word-format and the people on the other end expect from him to do likewise. He himself despises MS for that shoddy product. Peter Yep...that's the reason allright. The same applies to excel and powerpoint too. It's why most of the world is still using Office 97 and very few have even bothered switching to Office 2000 (unless it
Linux-Advocacy Digest #450
Linux-Advocacy Digest #450, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 11:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Michael Vester) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Michael Vester) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Chad Myers) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Nigel Feltham) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Jeffrey L. Cooper) Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux (mlw) Re: No More Linux! (Nigel Feltham) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: No More Linux! (Nigel Feltham) Re: My plan worked! (Michael Vester) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Chad Everett) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Roy Culley) Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Roy Culley) From: Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:05:49 +0200 Nigel Feltham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9djfe8$idfsu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Clusters actually tend to show LOWER uptimes because it averages the uptimes of all the machines in the cluster. Netcraft doesn't simply check if the server is up every so often, it actually determines the machines actual uptime from the machines packet signature. If this is true then look at which Win2k sites report the highest uptimes - they are all run by MS so is there any thing to stop them making their systems return false uptime data to fiddle the figures? Actually, those aren't the highest Win2K uptime figures, but those are the easiest to find. Had netcraft allowed any useful search through their database, it would've been possible to make true results. -- From: Michael Vester [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:37:04 -0700 Jan Johanson wrote: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Here are a couple of Win2K servers that stayed up for a long time. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=partnering3.microsoft.com 244 http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=download.windowsbeta.microsoft.com 216 http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=msdnisv.microsoft.com 189 http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=corporate.windowsupdate.microsoft.c om 189 http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=esl.one.microsoft.com 184 They are all clusters. Now, get, one, lone server loaded with Win2k Server, and then see the uptime. Matthew Gardiner I have one lone server loaded with W2K Server that has been running non-stop since Feb 17th 2000. It was rebooted one single time when SP1 was released, intentionally obviously, and never since. It has 100% uptime during the first period and continues 100% at this time. Are you starting to understand? W2K is reliable. A Windows 3.1/Dos 6 machine could stay up forever, just as long as you don't make it do anteing. My W2K machine at work locks up once or twice a day. It is used only as a terminal to Solaris, hardly a monumental task. -- Michael Vester A credible Linux advocate The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5 -- From: Michael Vester [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:41:01 -0700 Jan Johanson wrote: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 On unclustered/clustered category, Win2K wins *both* price/performance performance. By pitting only clustered Windows against only unclustered Linux, mostly. given that linux has never posted a single TPC result - you are wrong, again. Are you volunteering to pay for Linux TPC testing. A small problem with open source, free operating systesm; nobody is standing by with a billion dollars to run it through all the hoops. I'm willing to be if you give me the url, it will be the very same page of numbers I looked at months ago. gee, www.tpc.org? You're just unaware of how sound a spanking Erik got when he brought it up back then. Go ahead, try to spank - you'll only be spanking your own monkey in the end... -- Michael Vester A credible Linux advocate The avalanche has started, it is too late for the
Linux-Advocacy Digest #451
Linux-Advocacy Digest #451, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 12:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley) Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux (mlw) Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux (Mart van de Wege) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (pip) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Edward Rosten) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Edward Rosten) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:19:59 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Daniel Johnson wrote: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 No, Judge Jackson says there are quotes from MS executives to support this. Jackson isn't here to argue about it. I daresay Jackson thinks the quotes support *his* conclusions, rather than Ricks. Ricks interpretation WAS Jackson's. Doh! Jackson didn't preside over the Caldera case. He may, I suppose, share Ricks, um, opinions- but I don't think he's said so publicly. Judge Jackson thinks micro$oft is a predatory, anti-competitve monopoly. So do I. Judge Jackson thinks the DOJ should have made a much harsher penalty request. So do I. His opinions are prtty much in the public record. So are mine. And if the US judicial system fails then the EU is just waiting to jump in. As they have said they are waiting for the current appeal process in the US to be completed out of courtesy but if the appeal goes in Microsoft's favour then it will be full steam ahead. --- Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't looking any better. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:23:17 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JS PL the_win98box_in_the_corner writes: T. Max Devlin wrote in message [on the high probability that MS will skate...] that will make them about as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Keep practicing statements like this. Your going to need them in a few short days (or weeks) Judgement day is drawing near for Sleepy Jackson. The big slap down is fully cocked and set with a hair trigger. He's looking up with his tail between his legs. Sleepy is about to feel a boot in his ass from a full panel of his superiors. And Max is going to be doing some major spin control when his life's work on usenet turns to vapor in a fleeting instant, one day soon. If the US judicial system fails then the EU are just waiting to bring Microsoft to justice. Microsoft don't have any political clout in the EU and the penalties will hurt where they hurt most - up to 10% of gross world wide sales. --- Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't looking any better. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:34:43 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JS PL the_win98box_in_the_corner writes: T. Max Devlin wrote in message ... Said JS PL hi everybody! in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May The high tech industry, including Microsoft, has been responsible for almost 40% of our nation's recent economic growth. How's it stand up not including Microsoft, that's what I wanna know. Millions would be standing around wondering how to get a box full of hardware to do something. tee hee... How pig ignorant can someone be. Look what has been acheived
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 14:13:02 EDT Contents: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Chad Myers) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Chad Myers) Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Dave Martel) linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Doug Ransom) Re: OT Movies Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 compatible w/MSOffice 97/2000? (Steve Bellenot) Re: OT Movies Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy (Chris Ahlstrom) Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (cash) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Chris Ahlstrom) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Les Mikesell) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Gary Hallock) Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Les Mikesell) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Edward Rosten) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (Chronos Tachyon) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Ayende Rahien) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Ayende Rahien) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Ayende Rahien) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Bob Hauck) Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! (Dave Martel) From: Chad Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:58:37 GMT Chad Everett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Sat, 12 May 2001 13:50:48 GMT, Chad Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob Hauck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On 11 May 2001 21:38:02 -0500, Jan Johanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob Hauck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message Maybe because I'm using the new telnet server that MS provided with their new OS. Or does it not understand window resizing either? go ahead, amaze us with why you wanted to use a text interface? Having trouble with reading comprehension again Jan? You still haven't answered the question about window resizing either. You know, I was using Solaris 2.7 and bash just yesterday and I resized the window and nothing seemed to be affected. I was using vi and it didn't detect the resize. really? what kind of windows was it? xterm, dttermthis seems to work just fine on my solaris 8 machine and my bash shell at work. I don't believe you. Heh. Solaris 2.7 3/99 fresh install. Downloaded GZip and Bash I'm using CDE (not OpenWindows). Open a new console window. Open man for example, or vi, or anything really. Resize window. It won't update. Perhaps some apps detect resizing, but most don't. Please remind me how this is better than Windows again? How about it works and Windows doesn't? Well, maybe yours does, but mine didn't. I know that MS puts features into their products that do not actually work. So must Sun then. Well, you're wrong again in this case. If you tell me how to make screenshots in Solaris, I'll send you screenshots. -c -- From: Chad Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:01:22 GMT Michael Vester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Jan Johanson wrote: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 On unclustered/clustered category, Win2K wins *both* price/performance performance. By pitting only clustered Windows against only unclustered Linux, mostly. given that linux has never posted a single TPC result - you are wrong, again. Are you volunteering to pay for Linux TPC testing. A small problem with open source, free operating systesm; nobody is standing by with a billion dollars to run it through all the hoops. If any company saw a benefit in using Linux to up their scores for their product, it would've been used long ago. Sun, IBM, BEA, HP, and Compaq all could stand to gain if they could get better results in the TPC. Obviously, they've determined that Linux doesn't offer this, so therefore there's no incentive to pay millions of dollars if you know it's going to fail. -c SNIP: talk of spanking monkeys or something -- From: Dave Martel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 10:14:51 -0600 On Sat, 12 May 2001 14:02:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Philips) wrote: My
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 16:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Les Mikesell) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ed Allen) Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 compatible w/MS Office 97/2000? (Igor Sobrado) Re: Pesky lack of support (David Goldstein) Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Charles Lyttle) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 compatible w/MS Office 97/2000? (Igor Sobrado) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Ayende Rahien) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Chad Myers) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chad Myers) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chad Myers) From: Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4 Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:51:44 GMT Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9djuud$ens$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I meant something like WDM, where you have one driver for 98,ME, 2000 XP. AFAIU, the same is not (always?) true for linux. Nobody but Microsoft fragments their lines for marketing purposes to the point that a combined model is needed. With Linux the only fragmentation is supposed to be between the current stable and development versions and there is usually only a problem near the transitions where developers want to stop back-porting the development (or newly stable) changes to the dying (or dead) old version.Since there are no licensing issues or fees to switch among any Linux kernel it is a different situation than the one Microsoft enforces. If you need a driver that is only available for a particular kernel version you are free to run that kernel. With Windows most people are stuck with whatever came preloaded on the box. But if I want to run 2.4 kernel, and I only have 2.2 driver ? That is what I'm talking about. Since the transition of 2.4 to the current-stable release is fairly recent you might have this problem, but drivers with any support should have a 2.4 version available or on the way. Support for older versions will slowly go away. And what if I've software that wouldn't run (well) on the kernel I've drivers too? Etc, etc, etc. Do the same thing you did with all of your Win 1.0, 2.0, 3.1, WFW, Win95, etc. programs. Upgrade or toss them, or keep running the old system that worked.For the many thousand apps that come in a typical Linux distribution, you take care of the whole problem in a few minutes as you load the new copy. With Windows you spend as long just to get the OS in, then you have to feed the box another 20 CD's over the course of the next week to get all of your apps reloaded. Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen) Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 19:00:30 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JS PL the_win98box_in_the_corner wrote: [prison!come onyou can't be that deluded...] Much as it might surprise you some felons do actually spend time in jail. What will not happen, but should, is prosecution under the RICO Act and confiscation of his, Ballmer, and the other top executives' entire fortunes. -- Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately. Unconstitutional takes a little longer. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool. -- From: Igor Sobrado [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 compatible w/MS Office 97/2000? Date: 12 May 2001 19:01:15 GMT In alt.solaris.x86 Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Writing my own man pages is where I got started with *roff years ago. More recently (but still several years ago!), I looked at both TeX and *roff (I've even read Knuth's The TexBoo). I decided in the end that *roff suited my needs better. I agree with you. TeX is a great typesetting software and The TeXbook, one of the great books of Donald Ervin Knuth, is the best reference for it (another good book was written by Leslie Lamport, the developer of the LaTeX macro package for TeX) but *roff is more adequate for some needs. For example, I am writting some software. TeX is great for documentation (the old Hewlett Pakcard and even Microsoft
Linux-Advocacy Digest #455
Linux-Advocacy Digest #455, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 17:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Ed Allen) Re: IE (T. Max Devlin) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (T. Max Devlin) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (T. Max Devlin) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linux has one chance left. (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linux has one chance left. (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linux has one chance left. (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen) Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:00:35 GMT In article AseL6.16347$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:MPG.15668febb9c341fa98969a@news... I would agree with you if Microsoft deliberately created those circumstances and did it with the intent to monopolize. I find the whole Sherman Act bothersome because it's vague to the point where a company can't point to a specific time where its product became a monopoly. Yes, I think we would all be better off if specific acts were outlawed whether you had acheived a monopoly or not - things like offering vastly different pricing to someone who does something to help you destroy another competitor would float to the top of that list. Of course ignoring the court order not to bundle IE seems to be a problem any way you look at it... Then bank robbers would want an itemized list of the things they cannot do. Have you started on the list of frauds which should be forbidden ? When the details of the crime are subject to change we must have a blanket clause to include at least most of them and then add further clauses as new abuses are dreamed up to be beyond what is forbidden by the current clauses. The Sherman Act has been refined by the courts over the years so that the entire class of activities attempting to keep prices higher than competitive levels or attempting to prevent others, who would lower the prices, from access to the market are what it covers. All such acts require actively attempting to suppress or exclude from the market other companies. If an accident befalls a competitor that is not covered but if you engineered that accident then you are guilty but may not be subject to proof in court. If you keep arranging things you will eventually leave enough evidence to arouse suspicion and then bits of evidence which demonstrate the pattern of misbehavior may be seen as not so accidental after all. MS executives have the criminal attitude that the law as written should not be enforced against *them*. Competing does not include harming anyone, either customers or other companies. MS seems to believe that The Goal is to get control of all the money and whatever companies it must bankrupt or customers it must deceive in the pursuit of it are just sore losers. Conducting business is not warfare. Collateral damage and fraud are not competing hard. -- Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately. Unconstitutional takes a little longer. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool. -- From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: IE Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:10:57 GMT Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 11 May 2001 16:44:45 T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote You can suggest it all you want, its not going to do any good. ;-) Or did you mean YOU shouldn't do that? Yes. I meant me. Perhaps I have too interesting a conversational style to port directly to the net... I reply ion the tone of vioce more than anything to clear up obscurity... Conversation without either timber or voice is not easy, no. I find that always presuming the other person is making perfect sense, and you're the one who's incomprehensible. From such a position you can easily lay waste to the bullshit, while still leaving at least some of the real arguments standing. I hope so; you ain't bad. But then, you haven't necessarily even cut your teeth
Linux-Advocacy Digest #457
Linux-Advocacy Digest #457, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 18:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Chad Myers) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Les Mikesell) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Les Mikesell) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) From: Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:47:03 -0500 Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien wrote: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Here are a couple of Win2K servers that stayed up for a long time. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=partnering3.microsoft.com 244 http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=download.windowsbeta.microsoft.com 216 http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=msdnisv.microsoft.com 189 http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=corporate.windowsupdate.microsoft.c om 189 http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=esl.one.microsoft.com 184 They are all clusters. Now, get, one, lone server loaded with Win2k Server, and then see the uptime. Netcraft can't handle clusters. These sites use clusters. No, they're not. They're single machines. All of them. -- From: Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:49:59 -0500 GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Erik Funkenbusch wrote: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message Thats right... compare RH 6.2 to the latest MS O/S. What about the latest RH 7.1 then? I thought that was one of the advantages of Linux, that you didn't have to upgrade to the latest to get the latest stuff? Or are you now saying that you HAVE to upgrade to the latest version of the distro in order to see improvements? You don't have to upgrade. Then would you please stop contradicting yourself. Are you going to bitch that they didn't use the latest RH 7.1, or are you going to say that you don't need to upgrade? [blah blah, trying to distract from the point] Last time I was at Staples I saw Win2K going for around $287 without upgrade. And for OEM install of WinME it was around $150. Then you have to add more money for the windows compilers if you want one. GCC is perfectly free for Windows, just as it is for Linux. In fact, there are dozens of free compilers for Windows. -- From: Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:53:33 -0500 Edward Rosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9dirc0$b0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... You are trying to propogate the FUD/lie that W2K is not capable of steller uptimes. 120 Days, according to Microsoft. Yeah, really stellar. 120 days was the MEAN, not the maximum. -- From: Chad Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:28:46 GMT Gary Hallock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... In article 9djsjs$c22$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A It doesn't takes weeks to do GUI. B A good GUI allows you to do the same. Really? You have a GUI that can provide all the functionality of Unix commands and pipes? Where is this magical GUI? Clipboard? Piping text around isn't something you do very often in the GUI. You do this because that's the way CLIs are designed. I don't see many command-line flow-charts, 3D design, or contact/calendar management apps either. Each has their place. -c -- From:
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 18:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac) Re: Linux has one chance left. (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux has one chance left. (Pete Goodwin) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (Chronos Tachyon) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Gary Hallock) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Erik Funkenbusch) From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:10 GMT Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 Or, more honestly, it's the best tool to build apps for that desktop, because it dominates (criminally) that desktop. Nobody ever accused you of being honest, though, eh, Daniel? :-* The amazing thing isn't really that you believe that. The amazing thing is that you can't wrap your brain around the notion of anyone disagreeing with you. What in the world gave you that impression? That would be: Nobody ever accused you of being honest You seem to think that I can't *really* believe what I say, so I must be lying. I suppose it might seem that way to you, sure. I don't mistake lack of lying for being honest, though. Whether you believe what you say is not a subject I'm willing to discuss as an entire category. I'm not planning on second-guessing you, but simply double-checking your statements indicates you are being dishonest, routinely. Perhaps it is meant to be light-hearted, but I've already pointed out that there's little humor in criminal activity, so your supposed merriment is obviously just trolling. Just because people disagreeing with me are often in error does not mean I have any trouble with the concept of their disagreement. Post to Usenet and believe no-one can disagree with me? The cognitive dissonance of the very idea makes my head hurt. Mine too. Hell, *I* disagree with me all the time! What's the problem? Really? I've never seen you do that. :/ I don't do it out loud, for god's sake. They'd have never let me out of the hospital if I still did that! :-D -- 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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:11 GMT Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [...] I don't find any of these criteria particularly satisfying. Welcome to the fascinating world of abstraction. Ever read Plato, Daniel? That's what you're trying, known as the Socratic or Platonic method; through this means it is possible to prove that nothing exists. Ever heard the term post-modern bullshit? That's what you've got there. No, it isn't. Saying T Max Devlin is wrong, again isn't the same as saying Everyone is wrong, nothing is true. What does an induction assumption mixed with a category error have to do with the empirically proven uselessness of the platonic method for defining abstractions? Words don't meet criteria, they have meaning, or they do not. The term API does not have sufficient meaning when applied to what is more properly referred to as a routine. You say this but you give me no reason to believe it. I'm asking you to tell me how int 21h is *different*
Linux-Advocacy Digest #458
Linux-Advocacy Digest #458, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 19:13:02 EDT Contents: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Charles Lyttle) Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here! (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (Chronos Tachyon) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Charles Lyttle) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Edward Rosten) Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here! ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! (Mart van de Wege) Re: No More Linux! (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:15:52 GMT On Sat, 12 May 2001 21:17:42 GMT, Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does less than steller mean? Details! Details! Blue screens. Really? I spend a lot of time trying to track that sort of thing down. I think the manufacturers are in the process of abandoning Win98SE and concentrating on the Win2k kernel in prep for XP. Ah yes, latency. Another area where DirectX sucks. We are getting 2ms which is better than ASIO can manage and way better than MME. Eh? I thought ASIO was lower latency that DirectX. What's MME? 2ms is about as low as it can go at this point. MME drivers are the standard non wdm VXD variety. The drivers are stable under Win2k but so-so under Win98SE/ME. How are they so-so? Details! Many people reporting blue screens, lockups and stuttering audio. They run very smooth under Win2k for the most part. Blue screens and lockups? Not seen those (that doesn't mean they don't exist). Midiman is one of the best as far as drivers and support are concerned. The wdm focus is on 2k and xp and the mileage varies with Win98SE/ME. Stuttering audio - ah well... Perhaps we should take this offline out of this audio group, otherwise people like T Max might feel they're being ignored. He's the only person in my killfile at the moment. I rarely killfile anybody but he is really a waste of cycles. flatfish -- From: Darren Wyn Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 23:17:06 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote : The definition you provided did not specify a large quantity of available games. Consumers prefer a choice of games. It's fairly obvious. Splitting hairs over the theoretical excellence of Linux as a gaming OS is half-amusing; but it is hardly the mark of an intelligent Linux advocate. If you want to advocate an OS, then be frank about the strengths and weaknesses of that particular OS. Linux is not a great gaming OS, if only for one reason : there are hardly any games worth mentioning available, and there is certainly not a plentiful supply of them. -- S+M is outta the question, have you got a better suggestion I'm fed up of waving my right hand - rat salad www.ratsalad.co.uk -- Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: Austin Ziegler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:17:11 -0400 On Fri, 11 May 2001, Jeffrey Siegal wrote: Les Mikesell wrote: Do YOU know any way to write software that uses a library without using the library? (Aside from the legally non-existent concept of an API, of course, an separate argument I am even now pursuing. Feel free to pile on, but please don't beg the question.) Copyright covers distribution, not using. Copyright covers using. Using softawre involves making copies. Making those copies, unless done in the context of the statutory exception, require the permission of the copyright holder. In a strict sense, no, copyright doesn't cover use. I can *use* a book any way I like, as long as I've legally obtained a copy of that book. I can't copy and redistribute parts of that book, except in the context of fair use or by permission of the copyright owner. It's something of a unique situation that use of software typically requires an additional copy of the software at the time of execution. -f -- austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht Toronto.ON.ca* (There is no Luck without Discipline) =* I speak for
Linux-Advocacy Digest #459
Linux-Advocacy Digest #459, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 20:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Lee Hollaar) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (Chronos Tachyon) Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Joseph T. Adams) Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!) (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Roy Culley) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software Date: 12 May 2001 22:56:35 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Austin Ziegler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a strict sense, no, copyright doesn't cover use. I can *use* a book any way I like, as long as I've legally obtained a copy of that book. Not really. Except in certain special circumstances, you can't do a public reading of the book. And you can't create a new work based on the book, which sort of gets us back to the start of this discussion. -- From: Chronos Tachyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:56:30 GMT On Sat 12 May 2001 05:30, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [Snip] You show the same degree of competency in quantum physics as you do cryptography, Erik. What gave you the impression that anyone is 'debating' whether or not nuclear decay is random? It seems to me to be a rather fundamentally secure aspect of physics that this is, in fact, the very definition of 'random', at least as close as we can possibly get in the real world. As far as I know, in fact, it is truly random, and other than Einstein's intuition (long since proven false) that God does not play dice almost a century ago, nobody seriously questions this. What is debated is that we cannot know if it is truly random or not. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows that the mere observation of the particle effects its state, and thus its randomness. Even if the decay were completely random, there mere act of measuring it would make it non-random. Einstein tried to prove the HUP wrong with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, but it's still very hotly debated. Your problem max, is that you are only willing to accept what you believe to be true. The EPR paradox was essentially solved in the 1960's, when Bell's Inequality was hypothesized as a way to prove the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (CI/QM, spooky action at a distance) or Einstein's local hidden variable theory (HV/QM). The results came out strongly in favor of CI/QM, even after much peer review and many attempts to repeat the experiment. There is still some minor debate about methodology, mostly by eccentrics but occasionally by serious phyicists, but the results are widely accepted as canon. Since all post-Bell physics pretty much assumes that CI/QM is true, especially quantum computing, the evidence is in fact very strong that HV/QM is incorrect. Whenever you hear anyone talking about superposition or collapsing quantum eigenstates, they are talking about CI/QM, which would be right out the window with counting the angels dancing on a pinhead if HV/QM were actually correct. The fact that we can discuss such things, propose experiments, then get meaningful and correct results from them is strong evidence indeed that CI/QM is, if not the final truth, then at least a special case. -- Chronos Tachyon Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud [Reply instructions: My real domain is echo address | cut -d. -f6,7] -- From: Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:10:38 -0500 Charles Lyttle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Erik Funkenbusch wrote: Charles Lyttle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... COM was a great boon for developers, able to share compiled bits of code written in different languages, and allowing apps to communicate with each other easily. On linux, CORBA has barely taken off
Linux-Advocacy Digest #460
Linux-Advocacy Digest #460, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 21:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Robert W Lawrence) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Roy Culley) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Roy Culley) Re: Linux has one chance left. (Roy Culley) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 23:51:41 GMT In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JS PL hieverybody! wrote on Sat, 12 May 2001 11:48:05 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Roy Culley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JS PL the_win98box_in_the_corner writes: T. Max Devlin wrote in message [on the high probability that MS will skate...] that will make them about as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Keep practicing statements like this. Your going to need them in a few short days (or weeks) Judgement day is drawing near for Sleepy Jackson. The big slap down is fully cocked and set with a hair trigger. He's looking up with his tail between his legs. Sleepy is about to feel a boot in his ass from a full panel of his superiors. And Max is going to be doing some major spin control when his life's work on usenet turns to vapor in a fleeting instant, one day soon. If the US judicial system fails then the EU are just waiting to bring Microsoft to justice. Microsoft don't have any political clout in the EU and the penalties will hurt where they hurt most - up to 10% of gross world wide sales. The US judicial system has already failed, it is now in the fix phase. And who cares about what Europe thinks? Let them eat cake...err...Linux. IMO, Europe will fail, also. No, I for one do not look for the courts for redress of this situation. I would hope that Linux becomes a viable alternative on its own merits -- and look at how easy Microsoft formats are to hack. At some point, they'll either merge [*], or Microsoft will have to be better in order to stay on top. And because Linux is free, they'll have to do it legitimately. Ideally, MS would just die, and Linux, along with FreeBSD, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO Unix, and QNX will now compete on their merits, quality, and implementation of standards. But I don't see that happening soon; too many people depend on Windows. (This is not a bad thing, but Windows isn't exactly the best API.) Of course, Microsoft isn't exactly helping itself, either; it's far too easy to launch a .VBS worm, apparently. Brain dead? You bet! (Linux can fail, too. The worst thing for it to do is fragment into, say, half a dozen kernel types, incompatible with each other; the open source will help in that one can rebuild as one transports code from one type to another, though. Hard to do with NT... :-) ) [*] assuming this concept makes sense; Linux, after all, is not a corporation. Most likely, Microsoft will play smorgasbord, picking and choosing the utilities it likes. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here EAC code #191 12d:16h:09m actually running Linux. Microsoft. Just when you thought you were safe. -- From: Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 23:55:52 GMT Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Daniel Johnson wrote: Hardly. I get more flexibility from this than letting windows munge things up. If you think that desktop market is composed of masses of people who can and will write *print filters*- or even configure them- you are quite out of touch. [snip] When do you have to configuer print filters in Linux or Unix? When you want to benefit from the flexibility of print filters, naturally! If you just want prefab stuff, then it appears drivers will do fine. -- From: Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 21:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Clark Safford) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: Linux has one chance left. (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Linux has one chance left. (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Roy Culley) Re: Linux Users...Why? (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Linux Users...Why? (Roy Culley) Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Roy Culley) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) Re: Linux in college high school (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!) (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) From: Jan Johanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: 12 May 2001 19:45:17 -0500 mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Jan Johanson wrote: mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien wrote: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Jan Johanson wrote: Donn Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Jan Johanson wrote: Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house? Yes, because unix systems stay up longer. Remember the awesome MTTF that Windows 2000 exhibits? LOL. Yes, I do. And W2K stays up every bit as long as unix systems.I know you won't admit it or can't imagine it but that's your problem not ours. Why does Microsoft rely so heavily on clustering technology? when you can get a big iron like a SunFire w/ 16 x Sparc III CPUS, or an z900 mainframe that can stay up for years, requiring little or no maintainance. I would be quite interested in a Windows 2000 Server vs. SUN Sunfire midframe, without clustering technology, and see the uptimes of them. Can't speak of uptime, because it's usually to expensive (and long) to benchmark those. But according to TCP.ORG, in the unclustered category, Win2K win on price/performance. On unclustered/clustered category, Win2K wins *both* price/performance performance. If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times. TPC is not a universal benchmark. People must be paying members to submit results. Because of this only certain configurations ever get listed, and thus is not usable as a fair and equal benchmark. Second, the OS has little to do with TPC results. It is mostly database and configuration. TPC results have no place in an OS discussion. Interesting how often TPC results were mentioned BEFORE W2K took the lead... Really? I have never seen anyone stupid enough to confuse a database benchmark with an OS benchmark before the Winvocates started grabbing at the first thing they thought was helpful to their cause. Then you haven't been paying attention to your fellow unix worshippers comments in these forums for years now... -- From: Clark Safford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:44:42 -0600 Ayende Rahien wrote: [snip] Sarcasm But IE isn't the only thing that MS integrated. What about TCP/IP stack? MS integrated that into the OS, and kill the 3rd party stack supplier(Trumpet Winsock). *Bad* MS, why wasn't it split then? What about GUI? MS integrated that into the OS, and killed the 3rd GUI suppliers (Desqview). *Bad* MS, why wasn't it split then? What about memory management? MS integrated that into the OS, and killed 3rd part memory management (Quarterdeck ). *Bad* MS, why wasn't it split then? (I'm probably forgetting a lot here, help me) What about bundled applications? What about word proccessors? MS *killed* them by adding WordPAD. And graphic programs by adding PaintBrush. And no one will buy Adobe Premier because ME come with a video editor. And of *course* that I won't get a sound editing program, I've Sound Recoder.
Linux-Advocacy Digest #461
Linux-Advocacy Digest #461, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 21:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Linux and the War against M$ (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: Linux has one chance left. (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Tom Wilson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!) (Tom Wilson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Jan Johanson) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:21:12 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JS PL hi everybody! writes: Roy Culley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And if the US judicial system fails then the EU is just waiting to jump in. As they have said they are waiting for the current appeal process in the US to be completed out of courtesy but if the appeal goes in Microsoft's favour then it will be full steam ahead. And poor Microsoft won't be able to bribe senators and politicians. It also won't drag on four years. The US system is a farce. By the time a decision is finally reached it is too late. Microsoft have exploited this for over a decade. Their comeuppance is long over due. How do you like all those things getting integrated into Windows XP there...Roy! My god when will the lawbreaking end!!! That evil Mr Gates is integrating, or tying to the sale or feloniously forcing one to buy or what ever you prefer to call it lets see, CD burning software, Media Player, Digital Editing, Firewall, lets not forget the browser STAYS integrated! tee hee... Personally I don't care what's getting integrated into NT/W2K/XP. I don't use them at work or at home. At work though things are changing very fast. Before I had to fight to get Unix/Linux used as a server. Now whenever I say Linux can do it the boss is highly delighted. Why? I'm glad you asked. He knows that it costs much less and is stable and secure. That makes his boss very happy too. :-) I'm glad you mentioned firewall. Two security bugs in ISA and its only been on the market for a couple of months. The most recent was a total DoS. Now I have used Sun's sunscreen amongst other firewalls for the past 4 years. Never heard of a single security bug in sunscreen. Do you know why? I doubt it and then neither do Microsoft. --- Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't looking any better. -- From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:22:47 -0400 Daniel Johnson wrote: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Daniel Johnson wrote: Hardly. I get more flexibility from this than letting windows munge things up. If you think that desktop market is composed of masses of people who can and will write *print filters*- or even configure them- you are quite out of touch. [snip] When do you have to configuer print filters in Linux or Unix? When you want to benefit from the flexibility of print filters, naturally! If you just want prefab stuff, then it appears drivers will do fine. So, tell me... what attributes of my Epson 740 can I not take advantage of under Linux, that I can under Windows? Obviously you seem to think there are restrictions on its performance under Linux. Please tell me what they are. -- Rick -- From: Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:21:58 GMT T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 You sure about that? If you admit those things, your argument becomes rather weaker. If this were true, why do you think it would make a
Linux-Advocacy Digest #463
Linux-Advocacy Digest #463, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 21:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Jan Johanson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Jan Johanson) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Lee Hollaar) From: Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:38:56 +0200 Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:Q6kL6.19300$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message Frankly I think MS isn't dumb enough to do it after the debacle with Word 6. What Word 6 debacle? -- From: Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:48:06 +0200 Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien wrote: Roy Culley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... In article 9djs2t$bc2$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JS PL hi everybody! wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... The US judicial system has already failed, it is now in the fix phase. And who cares about what Europe thinks? Let them eat cake...err...Linux. You *are* aware to the fact that Europe is bigger, stronger, more populated and much richer than the US, don't you? Of course he isn't. His view is the typical myopic american one. Microsoft may well be still held in high regard in the US but to the rest of the world they portray the US in the worst light possible (next to their president of course :-) Don't know about the rest of the world, but at least here, MS is a life saver for many many *many* people. How does micro$oft save lives? It's a figure of speak, it mean that those people are *very* thankful. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/31/219214mode=nested (not mine, but I know what he speaks to be very true. The average person here wouldn't be able to use linux with a gun to his head. Have they tried Mandrake? Yes. And I have yet to see a truely ported Linux, What is truely ported? *Anything* is translated, include, in Linux, all the man pages, or whatever other help system you implement. Considerring the big dependency on CLI, that might mean translating the file names some of the directory structure, too. the way Windows was ported. How was Windows ported? *Everything*, and I mean *everything*, was translated. Hell, they even port *beta* software. http://www2.iol.co.il/communikit/scripts/forums/live/files/35/1012/4510045/4 510045.jpg http://www.tzvikam.com/winxp/winxploc2.jpg They even ported MSN. We didn't get ICQ in Hebrew even thought the *inventors are from israel*! -- From: Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:52:05 +0200 Roy Culley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... In article e_hL6.649$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Roy Culley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Just to be annoying: Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't looking any better. You do realize that most other software also has probably just as many security bugs, but since they aren't the target of constant probing, they aren't discovered. Also, companies like Sun and HP are constantly releasing patches to security bugs that they themselves have found before hackers exposed them. You do realise that Microsoft are a minority when it comes to Internet servers where security really matters? There security record is abysmal and shows no sign of improving. You mean, like SSL servers? IIS is the clear majority there, you know.
Linux-Advocacy Digest #464
Linux-Advocacy Digest #464, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 22:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!) (Tom Wilson) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! (Charlie Ebert) Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! (Ray Chason) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) From: Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:12:25 GMT Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9dkmf8$hmd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:odkL6.19307$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Windows, as its core, is a bunch of libraries that do commonly useful things. What MS did was fine a way to sell such a thing profitably. No, that is Win32. Windows (NT, don't care about 9x) I care about 9x. That's the successful one. :D I was talking about 9x. NT is indeed not really the same. Even 9x isn't *just* libraries anymore, but it is still close to it. can be define as a Micro-Kernel (sits on top of a HAL), on top of which sits the NT API. NT isn't a microkernel, it is just microkernel like. A microkernel would have a more flexible address space policy; you could have drivers and system services in their own address spaces, which I believe NT cannot do yet. It may evolve into a microkernel, though. On top of which sits several compatability layers, DOS, Win32 (the only useful ones), POSIX, OS/2. Yes. Of course, there is a *lot* of actual functionality in Win32; it's not all just thunking down into the executive. On top of Win32 layer, there is the shell (explorer.exe), and all the programs. Some of these programs lead double lives as development tools too. Explorer is, for instance, a user interface framework; developers can write plug in modules for it that let it brows into things it otherwise could not. Sure, it comes with a filesystem browing plugin. But there's much more under the skin for developers. That is a bit simplified, of course. There are plenty of middle layers, IIRC, there are two or three just accessing to hard disk. Sure. It depends how to divvy them up. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 02:00:08 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article Ny7I6.22197$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9cqv8a$hhe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... And also Microsoft claiming that closed source software more secure than opensource, that is definately the pot calling the kettle black. I guess it depends on what you mean by secure. If someone doesn't know the decode algorithm, 4-bit encryption could be quite secure -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley) Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 02:25:43 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article QDiL6.658$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message Apart from the fact that this decay is debated hotly (no pun intended) about whether it is random or not, One-time pads created on PC's without access to such generator are going to be predictable at some level. You show the same degree of competency in quantum physics as you do cryptography, Erik. What gave you the impression that anyone is 'debating' whether or not nuclear decay is random? It seems to me to be a rather fundamentally secure aspect of physics that this is, in fact, the very definition of 'random', at least as close as we can possibly get in the real world. As far as I know, in fact, it is truly random, and other than Einstein's intuition (long since proven false) that God does not play dice almost a century ago, nobody seriously questions this. What is
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 22:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!) (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert) Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Ed Allen) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert) Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!) (Tom Wilson) From: Tom Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:52:53 GMT Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9dkoad$kk8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Tom Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:ZPkL6.40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:Z1iL6.651$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... snip GCC is perfectly free for Windows, just as it is for Linux. In fact, there are dozens of free compilers for Windows. While I haven't looked at any of them for several years and my opinions therefore are dated, most I saw weren't worth the trouble to implement. You were better off just shelling out for a Borland compiler (For 3.11) or Visual Studion (9x/NT). One of these days I may try GCC for grins and giggles but am afraid to find out that it works better than VC6. Nothing worse than shelling out the dough for Visual Studio 6 Enterprise to find that a free product is better.g I truly don't want to find this out... I wouldn't be very surpirsed to find out that GCC is better than VC6, VC6' compiler is, after all, over 4 years old. However, I would use VC just for the IDE. I wonder if you can hock GCC to VC, the way Intel Compiler does. The senior guy at our hack shop was wondering the same thing and we may try it at some point. A pet project I want to do is a Visual-Studio-like front-end for X systems. IDE's are a pretty big weakness there. KDeveloper is starting to head in that direction but still has a way to go. The big things I want are auto completion, multiple language and compiler support, and Wizard-Based project generation (but with a less obtuse interface than IProject and IConfiguration). Someday, when I have the time.. -- From: Tom Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:54:33 GMT Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9dkoah$kk8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Tom Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:fzkL6.37$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Sounds like something a politician would buy into. Wonder how much greasing under the table went into that little plan. Personally, I think the military should develop its own system infrastructure and leave the commercial whoring to State and local governments. Our national defense is a damned sight more important than relying on systems provided by political favors and low-bidders. There isn't room there for conflict of interest. By law, they are required to search in the civilian field first, to see if something fits their needs. Only if there isn't something there, they are allowed to develop their own. Aware of that. I don't like that sort of system when it comes to military projects. They're just too important. The system works fine for State and Local government, though. -- From: Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:51:15 +0200 Clark Safford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien wrote: errr... I don't think anyone cared when MS bundled edlin w/ DOS. They would've cared had MS made the editor next to impossible to replace w/ a third-party editor. I wasn't talking about edlin here. No one would use it if you had something better avialable. And I consider *hexing* a text file to be better than edlin. At least you can see more
Linux-Advocacy Digest #466
Linux-Advocacy Digest #466, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 23:13:02 EDT Contents: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (Fulcanelli) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!) (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Chris Ahlstrom) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Clark Safford) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (pookoopookoo) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappyproduct) (The Ghost In The Machine) From: Fulcanelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:06:43 -0600 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aaron R. Kulkis wrote: snip Re: Let's take a nice, Glen Sliverdick Yeadon style pure-democratic vote: All for putting Glen Sliverdick Yeadon up against the wall, and filling him full of lead, say AYE! All opposed, say NAY Let's see how much Sliverdick likes democracy now. AYES:3 NAYS:0 Like anyone on the left would waste their time on a vote for such a tyrannical measure unless they absolutely had to. The Left is capable of seperating the wheat from the chaff whereas the Right ever gets them confused. ABSTAIN:1 An example of the dangers of pure democracy is all well and good, but I reject pure democracy even if Glen advocates it and wouldn't vote either way on the matter; there is no moral justification for the action or the mass decision behind it. _ Rob Robertson -- From: Jeffrey Siegal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 19:12:29 -0700 Lee Hollaar wrote: What provision of the current Copyright Act do you feel is unconstitutional, or otherwise preempted by the Constitution? And why do you feel that it is? I would say that the retroactive term extensions (and possibly, though not necessarily, prospective term extensions if they differ significantly in character from that envisioned by the Framers) violate the limited term language of the Constitution. I would say that the restriction on the distribution of anticircumvention technology (not really part of what is traditionally known as copyright, but part of the Copyright Act) violates the First Amendment, if that restriction is applied to source code and certainly if it applies to academic papers. I have no idea if this is what Max was talking about, since I don't read his posts. -- From: Tom Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 02:16:13 GMT Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9dkptl$n6m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Tom Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:VNlL6.58$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9dkoad$kk8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Tom Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:ZPkL6.40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:Z1iL6.651$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... snip GCC is perfectly free for Windows, just as it is for Linux. In fact, there are dozens of free compilers for Windows. While I haven't looked at any of them for several years and my opinions therefore are dated, most I saw weren't worth the trouble to implement. You were better off just shelling out for a Borland compiler (For 3.11) or Visual Studion (9x/NT). One of these days I may try GCC for grins and giggles but am afraid to find out that it works better than VC6. Nothing worse than shelling out the dough for Visual Studio 6 Enterprise to find that a free product is better.g I truly don't want to find this out... I wouldn't be very surpirsed to find out that GCC is better than VC6, VC6' compiler is, after all, over 4 years old. However, I would use VC just for the IDE. I wonder if you can hock GCC to VC, the way Intel Compiler does. The senior guy at our hack shop was wondering the same thing and we may try it at
Linux-Advocacy Digest #467
Linux-Advocacy Digest #467, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 00:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Doug Ransom) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) From: JS PL hi everybody! Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 23:16:32 -0400 Roy Culley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JS PL hi everybody! writes: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message I think you're just steam-rolling towards the destination you've already picked out. There is plenty of evidence just like the letter Rick showed. The point is, such evidence is non-compelling, in a legal sense; Microsoft can't be convicted for simply choosing not to sell Windows without DOS. Anti-trust doesn't work like that. It is the monopolization, not the strategies used to monopolize, which are illegal. Whatever damage the antitrust laws may have done to our economy, whatever distortions of the structure of the nation's capital they may have created, these are less disastrous than the fact that the effective purpose, the hidden intent, and the actual practice of the antitrust laws in the United States have led to the condemnation of the productive and efficient members of our society because they are productive and efficient. Can't speak for yourself sunshine? Alan Greenspan Greenspan who? :-) Shouldn't that be Alan who? -- From: Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:19:36 +0200 Clark Safford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien wrote: I wasn't talking about edlin here. No one would use it if you had something better avialable. I know. I was drawing an analogy. There has to be a distinction drawn between what has traditionaly been considered applications (where third-party companies have the ability to compete) and what is now considered an integral part of the OS. Otherwise, third-party software companies get pissed and call their congressmen. Okay, I would certainly think that integrating MS-SQL Server into the OS would be over doing it. However, what they do enter are things that users consider needed, that they *shouldn't* have to purchase also. Wordproccessor, I agree, and it have, pretty basic one, though. Database? Does the average user need this? Don't know where you are getting at, but you get a database with Windows, if you know how to set ODBC correctly. I'm asking why MS should have to stop at browsers. I'd also like to ask why they only seem to integrate things when they're having difficulty gaining market share. See above. I don't think that this is so. Zip file browsing, they didn't have such a product. CD-Burning, likewise. I think that those are things that the users need, now, in some cases, they do push an application that they already has. I consider it ok, it's not an application that they sold before, after all. So it's not as if they are cutting prices, beside, it is good for the consumer. Because people *won't* use this application if it's not better then the competition, if it's just as good or worse, then they'll just get the application they used before. See NS3 vs IE3 (about equal quality), only when IE4 was clearly superior to NS4 (especially the buggy beta verison) people start to move to it in droves. Spreadsheet is not something that your average user need. Let's replace that cute little calculator with Excel. Or would that impact MS's revenue stream? It probably would. And don't forget that most people don't *need* excel. Because today, it's pretty much an essencial need to have a browser, so yes, I think that it's a logical extention of the OS. I guess it is if you want to surf the net. Surfing your computer could be done in other ways. KDE GNOME does it the same way that MS does. How come with them it's okay but MS it isn't? As for using
Linux-Advocacy Digest #468
Linux-Advocacy Digest #468, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 01:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Lee Hollaar) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Clark Safford) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (mmnnoo) Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux (David Kaczynski) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Tom Wilson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software Date: 13 May 2001 04:03:00 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeffrey Siegal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lee Hollaar wrote: What provision of the current Copyright Act do you feel is unconstitutional, or otherwise preempted by the Constitution? And why do you feel that it is? I would say that the retroactive term extensions (and possibly, though not necessarily, prospective term extensions if they differ significantly in character from that envisioned by the Framers) violate the limited term language of the Constitution. The DC Circuit didn't seem too impressed with that argument. I wonder how many creators of copyrighted works would be happy without the term extension, or even the 14+14 years of the original copyright act, in trade for true exclusive rights to their writings during that limited term. None of the chipping away of the exclusive rights with compulsory licenses or the other stuff in sections 108 through 122. No making copies for personal use, or even to use a computer program, without the permission of the copyright owner. And maybe even a fair use exception as narrow as it was during the time of the first copyright act. It's interesting to note that as the term of copyright has been extended, the scope of the exclusive right has been cut back by more and more exceptions. Makes you wonder if somehow the integral of rights over time has stayed the same. I would say that the restriction on the distribution of anticircumvention technology (not really part of what is traditionally known as copyright, but part of the Copyright Act) violates the First Amendment, if that restriction is applied to source code and certainly if it applies to academic papers. While it's codified in Title 17, it seems separate from copyright. Even the infraction has a different name -- violation rather than infringement. Sort of like the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act, which is Chapter 9 of Title 17, but different than copyright. First Amendment law is more convoluted than copyright law. Not all speech is treated the same, and there are different standards for reviewing any restrictions on speech. Seems like the Second Circuit is going to say something particularly important about the interaction between free speech and computer software when it issues its opinion in the DeCSS case in a few months. And then, we'll see if the Supreme Court wants to say something different. As for academic papers, there is a specific provision in the DMCA that addresses the publication of encryption research applied to circumvention. See 17 USC 1201(g). For the results of the study by the Copyright Office and the Department of Commerce mentioned in the provision, see: http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/reports/studies/ I have no idea if this is what Max was talking about, since I don't read his posts. I don't even know if Max has any idea what he is talking about. But, given what was being discussed (software copyrights), it may not have been either anticircumvention or copyright term. Rather than speculate, how about let's wait until he makes a fool of himself again ... -- From: Clark Safford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:11:26 -0600 Ayende Rahien wrote: Clark Safford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien wrote: [time to snip a bit] I think that those are things that the users need, now, in some cases, they do push an application that they already has. I consider it ok, it's not an application that they sold before, after all. So it's not as if they are cutting prices, beside, it is good for the consumer. Because people *won't* use this application if it's not better then the competition, if it's just as good or worse, then they'll just get the application they used before. See NS3 vs IE3 (about equal quality), only when IE4 was clearly
Linux-Advocacy Digest #469
Linux-Advocacy Digest #469, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 02:13:02 EDT Contents: Re: OT: ASUS releases games cheat drivers (Tim Smith) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (JS PL) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Pascal Haakmat) Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Tom Wilson) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Tom Wilson) Re: OT: ASUS releases games cheat drivers (Tom Wilson) Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! (Pete Goodwin) Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! (Tom Wilson) Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith) Subject: Re: OT: ASUS releases games cheat drivers Date: 12 May 2001 21:51:12 -0700 Reply-To: Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave Martel forwarded: ASUS, the Taiwanese components maker, has released its much-criticised video card drivers that allow online game players to cheat. The drivers, which allow players to see through walls, were first announced in July last year and were immediately condemned by players and gaming organisations. That's quite stupid on Asus's part. Suppose a couple major game companies respond by making their games check for Asus cards, and refuse to run if an Asus card is being used. Asus is gonna feel really stupid when people stop buying their cards for gaming, since gaming is the major reason the mass market buys new video cards. --Tim Smith -- From: Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:12:20 +0200 Clark Safford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien wrote: Clark Safford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien wrote: [time to snip a bit] I think that those are things that the users need, now, in some cases, they do push an application that they already has. I consider it ok, it's not an application that they sold before, after all. So it's not as if they are cutting prices, beside, it is good for the consumer. Because people *won't* use this application if it's not better then the competition, if it's just as good or worse, then they'll just get the application they used before. See NS3 vs IE3 (about equal quality), only when IE4 was clearly superior to NS4 (especially the buggy beta verison) people start to move to it in droves. I believe that NS lost quite a bit of market share at a time that they were still considered the browser of choice. MS made most of it's gains during that time by making ISP's offers they couldn't refuse. That's one of the reasons they wound up in court. Not as far as I know, IIRC, they were in court for integrating IE, and refusing to allow OEM to install NS. Because today, it's pretty much an essencial need to have a browser, so yes, I think that it's a logical extention of the OS. I guess it is if you want to surf the net. Surfing your computer could be done in other ways. KDE GNOME does it the same way that MS does. How come with them it's okay but MS it isn't? Because both of those aren't an integral part of the OS. Both could be replaced tomorrow by MS's GUI if MS decided to bring the Windows experience to linux. That is not what I'm talking about, I'm asking why you seem to object browsing the net the computer using the same tool? There *is* a theoretical way you can possibly do this, replace IE with something else that implements the same interface. However, this require either: A Major amount of hacking, including doing several stuff that has red, huge, blinking, bleeding, screeming No! on them. B *Major* redesign of the system. Including almost certainly great loss of efficency. Or design an OS that does what OS's do and leave out all those things that 'enhance the Windows experience'. You mean like networking? GUI? browser? email? news reader? word proccessor? What you seem to want is a kernel plus Win32 on it. That would be great!!! And if I don't like Win32, I can replace it with Norton32, right? Okay, full stop! You want to pay for something like that, then pay *again* for GUI, *again* for networking, *again* for a browser, etc? Sorry, if you wanted *that*, you are late by about... 8 years or so. Before 95 NT, you bought DOS, which you seem to consider a viable OS for today's needs. Then you bought Win3.X, which provide GUI, (And
