Linux-Advocacy Digest #443
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 00:13:02 EDT Contents: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Paul Colquhoun) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud) Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (Bobby D. Bryant) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Tom Wilson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Tom Wilson) Re: Tired of XEMACS, moving to VIM (3FE) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Tom Wilson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (GreyCloud) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (GreyCloud) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (GreyCloud) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy (GreyCloud) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 03:10:04 GMT On Fri, 11 May 2001 03:41:06 +0200, Ayende Rahien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | |mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message |news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... | Jan Johanson wrote: | | 2.4 just had it's ass kicked, I'm amused. | Hardly, 6% is pretty much nothing. However. | |That wasn't what was said when it was Linux over Win2K by 2.7% Only by people who didn't actually read the test reports. People who did read the test reports tended to comment on the length of time between the Linux results (the earlier ones) and the Windows results, and on the differences in the hardware of the platforms the tests were run on. -- Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Universal Life Churchhttp://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=- xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by a leather-clad, New Zealand woman. -- From: GreyCloud [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: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:11:51 -0700 T. Max Devlin wrote: Said JS PL hi everybody! in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May There is no basis for concluding that the Justice Department's business model will benefit consumers. [...] Gov. Gary Locke (D-WA) Glad to hear the Governor's rather naive opinion. Guess you don't have to know jack-shit about anti-trust to become a Governor. -- T. Max Devlin *** The best way to convince another is to state your case moderately and accurately. - Benjamin Franklin *** HAHA!! The gov. is more worried about lost taxes than whether MS gets split or not. Now he's got Boeing leaving town. Wash. isn't business friendly. Too many taxes and too many rules. -- V -- From: GreyCloud [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: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:13:13 -0700 T. Max Devlin wrote: Said JS PL hi everybody! in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May I think we ought to be spending our time making sure there are a lot more Bill Gateses out there, Johnson said. US Rep. Eddie Bernise Johnson (D-TX), Seattle Times, June 7 Oh, THAT'll be fun. LOL! -- T. Max Devlin *** The best way to convince another is to state your case moderately and accurately. - Benjamin Franklin *** Hahaha and who said there weren't little green men?!? -- V -- From: Bobby D. Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use. Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:05:54 +0600 Burkhard W=F6lfel wrote: Bobby, don't forget the harms mice can do to your hand. I am a musician= , Me too, though of the most amateur sort. What do you play (instruments, = styles)? playing various instruments and quite a fast typer, I think. Mice are bad for my hands, I feel it every day i use them too much. A couple of years ago I moved my mouse over to the left, even though I'm = right handed. It first occurred to me when I noticed that centering the space= bar under my screen left the keypad extending off to the right, and forced me to re= ach even
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 02:13:06 EDT Contents: Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin) Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin) Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin) Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (T. Max Devlin) Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (T. Max Devlin) Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (T. Max Devlin) Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (T. Max Devlin) Re: Galeon, Galeon, rah, rah, rah (was: Too expensive, too invasive) (T. Max Devlin) Re: Article: Microsoft excludes world+dog from Passport climb-down (T. Max Devlin) Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (T. Max Devlin) Re: Phases (Michael Vester) Re: XP = eXPerimental (Chad Everett) Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Chad Everett) International Space Station: Russian software seems more reliable than Windows NT (Dave Martel) From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles Subject: Re: Baseball Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:12:01 GMT Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:39:05 -0600; T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:44:45 aaron wrote: Anonymous wrote: "Matthew Gardiner" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe Microsoft will go the full monty and deliver a stable OS for once? why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business? It's been so for well over a DECADE, jackie. so you're saying that in 1991 there was a unix system as easy to use as windows is today? To someone who knows how to use it, Unix is easy to use. To someone who does not know how to use it, Windows is hard to use. which one is easier to learn to use? Unix, without a doubt. I've taught ignorant people both, and there is no comparison. Unix is more powerful than many people feel comfortable with, of course, as they're insecure and unimaginative, as they've been taught to be. But Unix is undisputably easier. And that's not counting the command line. Anything with a command line is easier to learn, of course, because it is simpler (harder to memorize, perhaps, but easier to understand). But when dealing with a GUI, its best to have a rock-solid, stable and consistent system. So Unix wins, hands down. It's a lot less common, of course, since no Unix developer ever attempted to gain an illegal monopoly in OSes, let alone succeeded on the open-standard PC platform, but that's not what you asked. -- T. Max Devlin *** The best way to convince another is to state your case moderately and accurately. - Benjamin Franklin *** -- From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles Subject: Re: Baseball Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:14:08 GMT Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:48:36 -0600; T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Said Mike in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:16:12 -0700; "." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business? Windows isn't easy to use, it's pretty damned painful and stressful. To have excel GPF because you typed numbers into a cell, and lose your most recent work, is frustrating and inexplicable. Especially when you can load it up a second time and do exactly the same thing, but this time it wont crash. Every time I use linux, it does what I would expect it to do. THAT'S ease of use. WHERE ARE THE LINUX BILLIONAIRES? They're all over the place. Consider the "market price" of a PC OS. Let's say, fifty bucks. Now, that's just an EULA. A developer's license (yea, you see where I'm going with this) with source code and unlimited right to produce derivative property, that would probably cost no less than a few thousand bucks. But that's per computer; the right to distribute the OS or put it on any number (that's ANY NUMBER, one to one million, if you have, sell, or touch that many PCs) of computers. There are several million Linux billionaires, the way I see it. does my freeware copy of pacman make me a pacman billionaire? No. Freeware gives you no rights to the intellectual property; you merely have a copy of pacman, worth whatever you can get someone else to pay you for it. Kind of like a Windows license, accept you didn't give up your rights to sell it in order to get it. -- T. Max Devlin *** The best way to convince anot
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 05:13:03 EST Contents: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (Tim Hanson) Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Tim Hanson) Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis) From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:24:57 -0500 Peter Hayes wrote: On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:22:10 -0500, Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward Rosten wrote: Germany's foray into Yugoslavia. US/British bombing of Kosovo (part of Yugoslavia). Basically, the effectiveness of air superiority is at its maximum in flat, open desert terrain. And the sea, which is why a sea based invasion is difficult with out air superiority. The RAF did not have air superiority over the Channel at that time. In fact, the Luftwaffe had air superiority over Britain during the Battle of Britain up until some RAF bomber dumped a load on Berlin, and Hitler sought revenge by concentrating solely upon London.(*) (*) It could be that the bombload dumped on Berlin was specifically designed to provoke the Luftwaffe into bombing London. AIUI, a German bomber in trouble dumped its load of bombs over what they thought was open country, but was in fact blacked-out London. Bombing civilians was against Hitler's explicit orders, and the aircrew concerned were punished for it. Churchill was incandescent, and retaliated in kind, thus starting the indescriminate bombing of civilians that ended with Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki (for WW2, that is). The "Rape of Nanking" preceded all of this (1937-38). If they Germans had stayed on the original plan (bombing the aircraft production infrastructure) for another 2 weeks, the RAF would have collapsed. As more and more aircraft production facilities were destroyed, fewer and fewer fighters would be repaired, let alone replaced, and England would have been in a VERY difficult position. When the Battle of Britain ended in September (15th?) 1940, Britain had no backup resources, everything was in the air or on the runway waiting for "Scramble". Hitler decided it was time to invade Russia, the Russian winter was fast approaching and he wanted his blitzkreig to reach Moscow before the weather closed in. The evacuation of Dunkirk succeeded because Doenitz said he could handle it without the Luftwaffe, so Hitler told Goering to hold off. Hitler still fostered the idea of an Anglo-German alliance running the world, which explains his seemingly strange decisions. There were Panzas 10 miles inland that were held back which otherwise would have seen off the BEF. mega sigsnip -- Peter 55°25"N 4°44'W -- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer DNRC Minister of all I survey ICQ # 3056642 L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors. K: Truth in advertising: Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala, Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan, Special Interest Sierra Club, Anarchist Members of the ACLU Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement, J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4, The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle), also known as old hags who've hit the wall I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the challenge to describe even one philosophical difference between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact, Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because you are lazy, stupid people" G: Knackos...you're a retard. F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn. E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until her behavior improves. D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (C) above. C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me. B: Jet Silverman plays the f
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 22:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (mlw)
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600
"mlw" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Here is a question for all us Linux people.
If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
consider it?
The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
impossible. Already there are FrameBuffer versions of QT and GTK+, but
they're only used for embedded applications where X would not be a good
choice.
Unless Quartz ran on top of X, or vice versa, I don't see how it would work.
--
From: "Jan Johanson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 13 Jan 2001 20:15:38 -0600
wow, you are really out of your depth, you don't understand what you're
reading.
SWC is not and never was and never will be a web server, as in it creates
content. It serves up cached copies of static pages. That's what it does.
Period. It is impossible for SWC to produce a dynamically generated page.
Period. The sooner you get over these facts the sooner you can rejoin
reality sheesh...
Then again - thinking about it... ok, so what? Say SWC is some mysterious
here-to-unknown product MS has that no one has noticed until it went
head-to-head with the linux kernel mode webserver and THEN, desperate for
answers why linux only was a scant 2.7% faster the zealots had to go digging
for some exuse. Amazing that no one else has noticed this interesting
product that can do such miraculous performance and is tucked into the
kernel yet multi-million dollar players have simply "missed" it - whoops,
just like that. But mcnash spots it by his own mind-reading interpretation
of the source code to a benchmark.
I do see that by examining the files dell submitted for the tux results that
there is a line that reads: "interact with the TUX kernel subsystem" - there
we have it, proof that tux is running in the kernel space. There is
documentation for how to access it from user space too. So, there you have
it... tux in the kernel... whatever...
silly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:93q1j7$nhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Contrary to your assertion, SWC is in the kernel, it's visible from
user-space as a Windows 2000 device. Proof is Microsoft's own submitted
source code:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/api-src/Dell-20001212-TWC.zip -
unpack
it and open the twc.c C-sourcecode file. Search for 'SWC', it gives this
comment: "// Open Kernel SWC device": Q.E.D. Moreover, try searching for
'IIS' or 'ISAPI' in the whole source-code package - you will find only
one!
You will find many references to 'SWC' (Microsoft's in-kernel webserver)
and
'TWC', the API to this in-kernel webserver. You will even find some
interface
definitions in twc.h. If you ever programmed dynamic applications (ISAPIs)
under IIS, you'll immediately recognize that in this benchmark no IIS was
used for the dynamic requests. (maybe IIS was used for the 0.005% CGI's
SPECweb99 generates.) Calling the test-results 'IIS 5.0 + SWC 3.0' is most
likely a boldfaced lie, or at best an extreme exaggeration. In reality it
was
a "99.99% SWC 3.0 + 0.005% IIS 5.0" test. Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:93mbpa$p17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Jan, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's very
likely
a
duck. Microsoft's own in-kernel SWC 2.0 web page (the outdated SWC
version)
at http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/iis/swc2.asp says that this
'front-end
cache' accepts and answers web requests, logs those requests into its
own
separate binary logfile, and supports only the HTTP 1.0 protocol. The
Microsoft SWC 3.0 SpecWeb99 submission webpage (I couldnt find
information
about SWC 3.0 anywhere else) at
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
says that SWC 3.0 has its own dynamic API as well: "TWC 3.0". If this
in-kernel web-thing accepts web requests, serves web requests, logs
web
requests and provides ways to writ
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #28 Wed, 16 Aug 00 21:13:06 EDT Contents: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin) Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (T. Max Devlin) Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious (T. Max Devlin) From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:57:02 -0400 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy; "T. Max Devlin" escribió: Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy; "T. Max Devlin" escribió: [...] The mere declaration of an action as universally wrong is the telltale sign of the moral absolutist, because otherwise, what is the meaning of "doing wrong"? The meaning of "doing wrong" is ethical and local, even if the terminology used might seem to transcend that scope. Then fix your terminology. How do you expect to communicate when you abuse terms? You're rapidly making it to the top of my "probably a troll" list, Roberto. My terminology is "fixed", as in unchanging, because I use these terms consistently from day to day. I do not abuse terms. I don't accuse others who use conflicting or even contradictory definitions for some terms of "abusing terms". I accuse them of being mistaken, and explain the reason why I think so, and my suggestion for an alternative which is accurate, consistent, and practical. The response I get is mindless insinuation indicating you've gotten your panties in a bunch. If you can't keep up, just say so, and I'll try to go slower. One tell-tale sign of the post-modernist is when they gratuitously insist that somebody (besides themselves) have made reference to something being "universally wrong" merely because they aren't deferring to wholesale cultural relativism. Pfft. About the response I would expect from someone who isn't being critical enough of post-modern rhetoric. Somebody taught you "we are not any more ethical than slave holders", and you believed them. They were wrong, and so are you. [...] Always. but not to recognize that we merely inhabit reality, we do not literally create it? We inhabit reality, and we create small chunks of it. You're going to have to be quite a bit more explicit what you mean by "create" if you expect that to be a reasonable statement. In essence, you're going to have to define it as something other than "create". We perceive reality, we do not create it. You seem to feel quite insecure with the idea that we do create and are entirely limited by our perception of reality, but we do not create the universe by merely thinking that it exists. I have never claimed to be a solipsist. Since solipsism produces no practical effects, I have decided to ignore it. Solipsism is the belief that we create reality. You seem to only ignore it insofar as you add the qualifier 'small chunks of', whatever that is supposed to mean. The sentence "It is wrong" is semantically identical to "I believe it is wrong", No. "it is wrong" can mean: a) I believe it is wrong compared to my standards of correctness. b) I believe it is wrong when compared to some universal standard of correctness. Since there is no universal standard of correctness, these are semantically identical, as I've stated. In a discussion like this, it is very important to know which one, because b) implies the existence of such a standard, and the possibility of applying it to any action performed by anyone, thus opening the door to moral absolutism, which in the end leads to religion. But you are the only one who has ever mentioned any moral absolutes. The problem isn't *whether you think it is wrong*, but "what you think 'wrong' means". BTW, religion leads to moral absolutism, not the other way around, IMO. [...] but for the unstated delusion (which nobody I've seen post here seems to hold) that the concept 'wrong' somehow transcends morality or ethics and has physical influence on reality. Who would believe such a strange and unnecessary thing? That isn't the point, Roberto; you're trying to distract the discussion and don't seem to be reading what I wrote in context. To answer your question: anyone who believes in a moral absolute, generally. From "their" view, the moral question has no meaning; the church gets to "redefine the standard", as it were, of what is right or wrong. Yup. That makes it specially hard for them. No, it shows that they have no moral or ethical grounding by nature. What they do is right or wro
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #27Mon, 3 Jul 00 17:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell) Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord) Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451729 (tinman) Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (mike) Re: Mandrake - DUN ? (codifex) Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (Jerry Peters) Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen) Re: Numbers for users,hackers? (Mig Mig) Re: Numbers for users,hackers? (Mig Mig) Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond (was Re: Linux is junk)) (Mig Mig) Re: Linux code going down hill (Write tome) Re: Where did all my windows go? (abraxas) Re: Where did all my windows go? (Mig Mig) Re: Where did all my windows go? (Mig Mig) Re: Linux, easy to use? (Roberto Alsina) Hello (Send Memail) Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (Jan Knutar) Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451729 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy? (Mathias Grimmberger) Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck) Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451729 (Cihl) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? Date: 3 Jul 2000 12:23:32 -0500 In article Yr185.4272$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MSCHAP broke every existing dialup service, No, it didn't. Not adhering to the protocols you would have them adhere to is not the same thing as "breaking" anything. Please name one vendor of dial-up terminal servers that was not forced to re-write their firmware or go out of business. If you want to say that the vendors of dial-up terminal servers were 'forced' to re-write their firmware or go out of business, you should provide some evidence for it. If you want to claim that dropping an incompatible dialer on every desktop didn't break the standards-conforming existing hardware, you should provide the evidence, except there obviously isn't any. I was using a Gandalf at the time, but it affected everyone else the same way. They all had to roll out new firmware. They were, after all, somehow able to get by before MSCHAP got along. They had to have *some* way to distribute their dialers. No, they just worked with standard PPP dialers before. No need to distribute anything proprietary. [snip] Are you saying you judge MS by a different standard than others, then? Yes, because of their sheer size. If anyone other than MS had delivered a client with MSCHAP, it could have been universally ignored. Well, at least you admit to your double standard there. But I had thought better of you. Oh well. Better? I have a keen sense of the obvious. Competition takes care of such problems. MS doesn't have any compitition. [snip] That is fine if you have several vendors competing on an equal footing. We don't and you know it. Indeed; we don't, we never did, and we never will. We don't need it. You speak only for yourself here. What difficulties? They've been sending email world wide long before MS even thought about their silly product that was based on file sharing. Shrug; Unix's problems are sufficiently obvious, and sufficiently oft commented upon, that if you don't know about them, it's because you don't want to. In other words you can't think of any... [snip] ...monopolies.. I guess so. I meant that the meaning of the term has changed so that it no longer resembles what it once did, and in particular no longer implies a lack of competition, or control of a market. In regard to what company? Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:18:22 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Written back in the days of 300 bit/second modems Forgive me for noticing that ... technology has advanced in the last 25 years. snip Glad to see you've grown up (at least regarding your signature). :-) -- From: Phillip Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! Date: 03 Jul 2000 18:31:52 +0100 "Hyman" == Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hyman Phillip Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You miss my point badly I am afraid. Hyman I don't think so. You likened discussing the future
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution (Josiah Fizer)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Here is the solution ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Cihl")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: Here is the solution (Josiah Fizer)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Programs for Linux (Dallas Times)
Re: What have you done? (Bart Oldeman)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
RE: Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Alberto Trillo")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Mark Ritchie)
From: Josiah Fizer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:00:39 -0700
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
In article P0eS4.2252$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alberto Trillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's begin assuming that from Java one can program whatever
one want, and since there are not only Windows JDK, but a lot
of compilers (like IBM, Symantec or Inprise to say some) targeted
to Windows, why should anyone want to use Windows undocummented
API calls when Java can just be used to everything.
If you do not think Java servers for all, well, don't you think that
there
are enough shared libraries and enough API calls to let you do whatever
you want to do ? What can Microsoft use undocummented API's for ?
Do you think there is a call start_word() ? Well, Microsoft does a lot
of awful things, but why the hell does it need hidden API's ? Let's be
serious, and if so, what advance can those hidden API's give to their
applications ?
What I want is a non-Microsoft replacement for the Windows 2000
domain controller and active directory services that will provide
full client functionality without requiring the Microsoft server.
Is the protocol sufficentially documented to allow that?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We use Novells NDS services for Windows NT. Works far better then the NT
Domain active directory. granted its not a true replacment as its not
compatible. But it serves the same function.
--
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:08:15 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
If it's so easy, why does unix require the #! syntax to identify scripts?
This actually makes content based identification of files and
general file types 'easy'. It is the sort of thing that negates
the need for a registry.
Examining the file to determine type is just about the worst thing you
can do. It's unreliable and inefficient (requiring sophisticated
pattern matching that doesn't always work), and you're screwed if you
don't have read access.
The file itself contains the necessary information so you don't
need a centralized list of some kind.
The file doesn't always have the necessary information. For example, a
file may contain raw PCM data with no header. Besides, what is
/etc/magic if not a "centralized list of some kind"?
IMHO, when it comes to file typing, the Mac does it the best way, and
Unix the worst.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 10 May 2000 12:23:23 -0500
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Josiah Fizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are enough shared libraries and enough API calls to let you do whatever
you want to do ? What can Microsoft use undocummented API's for ?
Do you think there is a call start_word() ? Well, Microsoft does a lot
of awful things, but why the hell does it need hidden API's ? Let's be
serious, and if so, what advance can those hidden API's give to their
applications ?
What I want is a non-Microsoft replacement for the Windows 2000
domain controller and active directory services that will provide
full client functionality without requiring the Microsoft server.
Is the protocol sufficentially documented to allow that?
We use Novells NDS services for Windows NT. Works far better then the NT
Domain active directory. granted its not a true replacment as its not
compatible. But it serves the same function.
Compatibility is the point. Every little thing in Win2k seems
to require active directory service for no reason other than
to force you to install a server. For example you can manually
sync remote files without one, but if you wan
