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 #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: t. max devlin: kook (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was Re:
Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Linux is just another Unix (yawn) (Peter R. Wood)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Baseball (Anonymous)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: XP = eXPerimental (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Goldhammer)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:42:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Anonymous
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:30:34 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anything with a command line is easier to learn, of course, because it
is simpler
i just wanted to see that again
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
There are advantages to the command line, but ease of learning
is not among them (though it depends in part on the complexity
thereof, the design of the GUI, and to a large part on the
documentation available using 'man' or 'info').
A well-designed GUI can be very easy, especially if it has common
elements; this is what makes Windows so powerful. (Mac OS, too,
as it turns out, although the details are different, and, to
a slightly lesser extent, widget sets on X; the main problem there
is cut and paste, and resize feedback.)
Everyone understands:
- moving the mouse pointer
- clicking, dragging, and dropping
- double-clicking, dragging, and dropping icons
- folder icons as directories, document icons as files
- top-mounted window pulldown menus
- keyboard shortcuts
- buttons with balloon help
- text entry controls, both multiline and single-line
- Control/C, Control/X, and Control/V
- scrollbars
- scrolling lists (both horizontal and vertical)
- drop down comboboxes (which are actually a combination of button,
menu, and list)
Windows does have advantages. However, MS may be frittering
away some of them; the latest Windows appear to have movable
menubars. What use is that? Detach a menubar from the window,
and it becomes a floating menubar -- um, now what app did
that floating menubar correspond to?! (Netscape and GTK have
the same capability, so it's not limited to Windows.)
And then there's the famous gorgeously slow disappearing and
scrolling out menus. Waste of CPU cycles, IMO. What's
next, rapidly rotating dialog boxes a la old filmreels and cartoons? :-)
At least balloon help serves a purpose, especially since some of
those icons aren't exactly intuitive. Even pulldown menus
are an aid to documentation; they show the capabilities of the
program -- which makes the "hide less recently used" option
on pulldown menus in Windows a bit puzzling. Then again,
one can make a case either way.
The horizontal scrolling file requester is an abomination, but
we're used to it now, even to the point of duplicating it,
bodge for bodge, in the Wine project -- although that may
be because I'm using it with Win95 and the Microsoft DLLs are
setting that up.
One other advantage with Windows -- IE has instantaneous refresh
during resize; Netscape does not. This feedback is very helpful
to the user who wants to see the web page just so, and may explain
in part why IE is so popular in the first place.
Most X window managers rubberband during resize, so this facility
may not even be available. I am tempted to write one that treats
X resize events similarly to X move events, but I fear the performance
in many apps may not be there -- and it will take me awhile,
as it's not my speciality.
Compared to all this, the command line is extremely dry and
uninteresting, although improvements have been made there, too;
older systems don't have:
- filename completion
- command completion
- filename and command listing on double-TAB
- arrow-key history and editing (although some used VI-style keys)
Heck, HP-UX can still come up using @ for linekill and # for backspace.
Arcane? You bet your sweet bippy. But the users have changed;
we're more demanding and fi
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: VA Linux cuts 25 per cent of staff, sees 212% increase in revenue loss ("Adam
Warner")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Bloody Viking)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("-hs-")
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) ("-hs-")
Re: Where is suse 7.1? (Tim Hanson)
Re: Kulis revelation! (Tim Hanson)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: State of linux distros ("Reefer")
Re: How much do you *NEED*? (Brent R)
Re: State of linux distros ("Reefer")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (mlw)
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) (mlw)
Re: How much do you *NEED*? (Brent R)
Re: Where is suse 7.1? ("cat cola" [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How much do you *NEED*? (Brent R)
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) ("cat cola"
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:30:02 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
In article 976oqq$ani$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayende Rahien wrote:
I've been doing some reading on Java when I encountered this article:
snip happens
on http://www.tpc.org/tpcw/results/tpcw_perf_results.asp
How come IIS run on DYNIX?
What I find hillarious about this is the author appearently
has never heard of HOT MAIL and how Microsoft has been trying
for the last decade to replace the FreeBSD servers which RUN
HOTMAIL with Windows counterparts.
They spent several million dollars in those attempts also.
The last attempt was with Windows 2000.
And they all failed. They can't keep the system up for
more than 3-4 days. And rebooting thousands of boxes
is completely crazy.
And at the rate Linux is obiously whooping up on MS asses
at the marketplace, anybody who's waiting for affordable,
workable scalability thru Microsoft will have to wait
for Christ to return to get it.
No...not even Christ can salvage the demon-infested OS
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN****GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
--
From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:33:18 -0500
Bloody Viking wrote:
I just tried a simple trig thing on my Linux box but the gcc compiler gave me
some error, despite having math.h added as the libraries. More bizarre, my
UNIX ISP had exactly the same problem with the same seemingly simple progg
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows Stability (Charlie Ebert)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Charlie Ebert)
Linux 2.4 Major KICK ASS! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows Stability (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows (Lewis Miller)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:01:11 GMT
In article bdE76.28128$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Chad Myers wrote:
"Bagpuss" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:f_A76.271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"J Sloan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Chad Myers wrote:
"Matt Soltysiak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years.
It's
amazing.
Here are some of the common failures:
Give me a break, do you really expect anyone to believe this bullshit?
If you're going to lie, at least make it halfway believeable.
By pointing out some flaws in windows you have kicked over
a hornets nest! These blue nosed, humorless windoze zealots
are not to be taken lightly!
jjs
What I said was completely correct.
I subscribe to many mailing lists, read many support message boards,
talk with many colleagues who support hundreds of Win2K installations
on the desktop and I, myself, administer about a dozen or so Win2k
installations.
I can count the number of BSODs I've seen or heard of on one hand.
For this idiot to come in here and say it crashes several times a day
is absolutely rediculous. It's like saying that Linux crashes every
day. Even I, a professed Linux hater, will say that that's absurd.
He's not an idiot and Windows does CRASH a couple of times a week
under heavy use if you don't turn your servers over every other
day.
If you have a Windows Server which manages to stay up for a week
at a time, chances are nobody's seriously using it for anything.
It's another expensive company nightlight.
This Matt guy has fallen off his rocker, or he's just blatantly
lying, which is more likely.
Nope. He's making a BSD sales pitch.
-Chad
Too right! I'm a newcomer to this group and the mentality amongst the
majority here is like a bunch of 12 year olds. It always appears to be a
case of "Well, this doesn't work in Win2k when I do this" and the reply is
always "You're a fscking idiot, it never happens to me so Win2k must be
excellent." Although the chances of the respondent having the same hardware
configuration and software configuration as the original poster are slim to
none.
There are also Linux fanatics that are convinced that Linux is the best
thing since sliced bread; how it never crashes and anyone who crashes it
must be a complete idiot.
Both groups are living in cloud cuckoo land. Every OS has it strong points
and its weaknesses. I might just have the situation in where I want to give
a toaster an OS (Linux), I might just have the situation where I want to
give an end luser an OS (Windows)
The world would be a boring place without variety.
Anyway, I don't know what the purpose of this post is because it will make
bugger all difference to most of you.
Oh, and just for the record I've had a stop error on Win2k Server from
minimizing an explorer window *and* I've had Linux lockup on me by just
starting X shock horror
I'm off to play with my BSD box...
--
Bagpuss
Your friendly cloth cat (donning flame retardant catsuit)
Take the rubbish out before replying
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:03:08 GMT
In article 93obvc$od9$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Joseph T. Adams wrote:
Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: "Mig" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:93o1ek$leb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Well.. it sure looks like lots of the old MS faces are leaving the ship.
: The shares are down from near 120 to under 50 in about one year... i think
: the dumping started long ago.
: The shares will go back up. No matter what happens with the antitrust
: trial, they will go up. If they're split, existing shareholders will get
: shares in both companies, thus doubling their holdings. If t
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: C++ is very alive! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? ("Mike")
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: C++ is very alive!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:43:42 GMT
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:35:41 -0500, mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob Hauck wrote:
However, I don't agree at all with the implication that "real
engineers use C++".
No such implication was made. I said "like" C++. This could be any
language who's langauge has the ability to represent a close resemblemce
to the CPU.
There are CPUs that can execute Java bytecodes. There used to be
(maybe still are) CPUs that can execute Lisp. Forth is pretty close to
the machine and can do amazing things on small boxes, but I hope you
don't advocate it for development of large systems by a cast of
thousands.
But that's beside the point. Many developers, who deserve the title of
"software engineer" in that they have commensurate education and
background, work in areas where it is not particularly helpful to be
close to the CPU. Yes, we should all have some exposure to such
languages, but there's no reason why they should be the first choice of
working engineers.
During my EE training, I learned how to design an electric motor,
something that I have never once done as a working engineer. If I have
to control a motor with a computer, it is useful background, but
designing motors isn't something that I normally do. Similarly, a
working knowledge of computer architecture, registers, and algorithms
are good background to have. This doesn't mean that you need to use
C++ and assembler for every job or have information about Pentium
registers on the tip of your tongue at all times.
If for instance you are building browser applets, then that's downright
counterproductive, since you can't know what CPU your client has. Even
lots of regular business data processing isn't concerned so much with
ultimate efficiency as with correctness, portability, and development
time. People are costly, and often it makes economic sense to write a
slower program faster.
Engineers are in the business of making tradeoffs. The implementation
language is just one more factor to be considered during the design
process.
If Java is is the right tool, perhaps, but it is rarely the correct
tool. There are environment that are very much easier in which to code.
C++ not being one of them.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
--
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:48:25 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
"mark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article 8vploe$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayende Rahien wrote:
Actually, no, I couldn't.
If I'm on win9x, I would've to go to Dos(real mode) and do it.
Otherwise, I would get permission denied or some such error.
You have to be root user in linux to achieve this, this means,
at the _very_ least you've made a specific decision to do
some admin task. Otherwise you'll get permission denied or
some such error.
A lot of users are running as root.
Only on systems which fail to distinguish between administration
and everyday use...and systems which make it overly burdensome
for the administrator to switch to the administrator account.
There is only one place where I have routinely logged into
a system as root, and stayed logged in as root, all dayk, every day.
And that's because I spent close to a year removing greasy
fingerprints from clueless windows people who were foolishly
trying to administrate a Sequent cluster the same way that they
would a Windows 3.1 machine.
UGH!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
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"
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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionari
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #29Wed, 4 Oct 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Java (off-topic?) (Was: Re: Because programmers...) (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Stephen Uitti")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? (.)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (.)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 15:18:10 GMT
In article 8rdbjh$26rc$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't been able to spare $20 a month in several
years for regular Internet service, so I've had to
use several "Free ISP" internet service providers.
Unfortunately, all of the "free internet" (i.e.,
ad-bar) services only have software for the Windoze
9Whatever OSes. So I've been in the irritating
position of requiring a multi-boot computer for
years, and booting into Windoze to get on the
Internet. Freewwweb.com used to exist to provide
non-ad-bar Internet for Linux users, but they
recently merged with Juno and now Juno is the only
company.
If you want to get Linux on the desktops and laptops
of the world, you need to get *any* of the Free
Internet companies to create a version for Linux.
Linux has software to replace every single Micro$oft
application. If you could advertise that Linux
essentially "comes with" free internet service,
Linux usage would increase. A clever licensing
agreement could even put the "free isp" software on
the distribution CD itself.
Oh I see. In order for linux to 'succeed' (whatever
that means), it has to make YOU happy.
You're right, I didn't say that right. "You" *should*,
rather than need, to get free internet for Linux. Also,
as far as success is concerned, I just think it would be
faster with free internet than without it. Right now,
Linux is proceeding at a decent pace. Add in free internet,
and Linux would get its own jet.
Yes, I would benefit. Yes, Linux should make me happy.
I'm not a programmer, I'm a user, and I'm pretty sure that
non-programmer users outnumber programmers.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Java (off-topic?) (Was: Re: Because programmers...)
Date: 4 Oct 2000 15:15:45 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Roberto Selbach Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for JITs, well, I heard about them and decided to try. I've never
seen a java program which could be even _near_ C++ speed, especially
when you can optimize C++ to use processor specific instructions,
etc... Of course, I have no numbers nor have I ever tried to _really_
benchmark this.
Our HPC research group has been looking at this, and they have been
able to get (specially-preprocessed) Java to within a factor of two of
FORTRAN on tests like large matrix inversion. The compilers they are
using are pretty much state-of-the-art all through, as is the
hardware. Considering how long Java's been about in comparison to
FORTRAN, and that we are working on FORTRAN's home ground, that's not
too bad.
Instruction-level optimisations are a mugs game, especially when
hardware varies as much as it does...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellowshttp://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I could even declare myself a religion, if that'd help.
-- Mark Loy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 4 Oct 2000 15:29:53 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nobody cares. A program is not data to the end-user, and data is not a
program to the end-user. That's all that matters.
Real end-users don't care about the difference, and don't want to
care. Computer people should not force that care upon them...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellowshttp://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I could even declare myself a religion, if that'd help.
-- Mark Loy [EMAIL PR
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you!
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Windtrolls
and Authentic Linvocates)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates)
Linux Presidential Candidates? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Joseph)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
From: Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:43:39 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Christopher Smith wrote:
"rj friedman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:04:02 "Christopher Smith"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
¯...since I disgree with the law in principle and consider
¯most of the evidence to be irrelevant, it's hardly surprising I have a
¯different opinion to you, no ?
The United States of America - and the European Common
Market - and China - and Japan - and India - all say that
your 'different opinion' is full of shit.
You mean, their legal systems. I sincerely doubt everyone in those
countries agrees on that point.
Duh.
I fear I've been too subtle in trying to say arguments along the line of
"but they broke the law" don't carry too much weight with me.
Then let me be clear - your opinion has NO weight. why? You don't like the
laws and you ignore the principles on which we establish facts and truth.
Fine. Okay.
It is very important to understand how extreme and unreasonable one has to be
to hold your pro MS beliefs.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 17 Aug 2000 03:53:36 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't attach any more meaning to 117's "utilization" than
"utilization". Running is certainly one form of utilization.
Decompiling is another.
Section 117 does not purport to protect a user who disassembles object
code, converts it from assembly into source code, and makes printouts
and photocopies of the refined source code version.
_Sega v. Accolade_, 24 USPQ2d 1561, 977 F2d 1510 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
(TMax claims to have read this case, but I guess he rejected the court's
comment because it wasn't "cogent", or fit within his unique theory of
copyright.)
Well, Mr. "I'm a legal expert", perhaps you missed the fact that "making
printouts and photocopies" is a violation of copyright law. Are you
trying to say (or merely assuming) that disassembly and conversion to
source code is not "utilization"?
Good. At least you seem to understand now that _Sega v. Accolade_
is a copyright case, rather than a trademark case like you said it
was. (Although the court does address the trick Sega used to protect
their console from unauthorized games by trademark, saying that they
were the infringers if anybody was.)
Generally, when somebody disassembles a computer program, they make
printouts so they can study it. I think the court was recognizing
that as part of the disassembly. And "making printouts and photocopies"
is not always a violation of copyright law. Otherwise, the court would
have found for Sega on that ground alone.
[Snip]
On that topic, I found this interesting site while researching these
issues.
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html#fn2
For anybody who doesn't want to look that up, here's what the URL
points to --
[2] THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 1292 (3d ed. 1992).
For somebody who wants to read the whole article, try --
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
It's a reasonable article about how the courts have avoided enforcing
software licensing that go considerably beyond the restrictions of
copyright law. Paragraph (35) is interesting about its comment that
something wasn't a derivative work, because it wasn't "
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #27Mon, 3 Jul 00 23:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do (Gary Hallock) Re: Linux code going down hill (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linux code going down hill (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linux code going down hill (T. Max Devlin) Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Linux code going down hill (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linux code going down hill (abraxas) Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not ready.) (Jonadab the Unsightly One) Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Michael Powe) From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 02:01:36 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:10:51 GMT, Peter Wayner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, this was obviously flame bait, but it's still worth noting that it's very hard to count Linux users. There's no central regime collecting taxes, er fees for a copy, so there's no one counting. I've got Linux on 4 machines in my office, but three of them are just old machines I decided to dedicate to experimentation. Do they count? I rarely use them. As long as Rex Ballard spreads lies about the number of Linux users, people will call him on it. At my web site, www.open4success.com I give 11 references that discuss the issues related to sizing the Linux market. These speculations are clearly just that. Microsoft has complete control of nearly every copy of every version of windows sold (including several never officially sold), and can provide extremely accurate numbers. Linux counting starts right out with the very difficult problem that Linux is sold under a license that makes copying completely legal. This means that you can legally install several systems under a single purchase. In Bob Young's Sizing the Linux market, (Link available under www.open4success.com), he suggests that a factor of just over 4 users per unit sold (4 million on 750,000 sales) would be a good measure. In 1997, there were roughly .75 million units sold. The average growth was 270%/year across all competitors. .75 * 2.7 = 2.025 million sold in 1998 2.025 *2.7 = 5.47 million in 1999 5.47 * 2.7 = 14.76 million in 2000. Multiply this by 4 which gives roughly 60 million users. This would account for the U.S. domestic market. In foreign markets, especially Europe and Asia the number of duplicates and sales is nearly impossible to track. One project sponsored by the United Nations resulted in 10 million Linux machines being distributed to 38 3rd world countries. Assuming a duplicatation rate similar to the U.S., this would result in roughly 40 million users outside the U.S. Look, he claims that there are 90 million satisfied Linux users. The US is a little less than half of the worldwide computer market, so that means that there are 45 million computer users in the US, which amount to about 1 in 6 Americans being a "satisified Linux user". In my http://www.open4success.com/LinuxGrowth.html I give my definition of a "qualified Linux user". This would be anyone who has successfully installed Linux and chosen not to remove it from their system. This would include Linux dual-boot users, VMWare users, and Wine users. Of course, many of these users could be included in Microsoft's count as well. In fact, even full-time Linux users would be included in Microsoft's count, since OEMs purchase Windows for each machine sold. The possible exception would be the machines sold with Linux preinstalled. Preinstalled Linux systems exceeded 3 million machines this year. A mere 1.5% compered to the 300 million Microsoft based machines has sold in the last 2 years. Which, as everybody knows, is just patently ludicrous. Maybe 1 in 6 Americans is a user of Linux because they use web pages served up by Linux, Actually, if I used that as a basis, I'd have to include all 300 million Microsoft machines as well :-). Where does Microsoft sell those 300 million unit? Isn't it funny that in a world of 6 billion people, 200 million machines are sold by Microsoft in the U.S.? or fileservers run on Linux, he he touts this as if 1 in 6 Americans uses Linux at home in a satisifed manner. You will note that he is counting _users_, not _machines_. Good point. It's very possible that I meant machines :-). Actually, this is a very legitimate point. I am comparing percentages of Linux to sales of Microsoft. There are nearly 600 million users
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution (josco)
Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance... ("John W.
Stevens")
Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance... ("John W.
Stevens")
Re: Linux will remain immune (Eric Leblanc)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Andres Soolo)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Brent")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Alan Boyd)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Christopher Browne)
Re: CVS and Windows (Christopher Browne)
Re: What have you done? (Christopher Browne)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Grant Fischer)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Christopher Browne)
From: josco [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 15:24:10 -0700
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Todd wrote:
Challenge:
Give me just *one* MS undocumented API call, that could not be done with
their *free* downloadable SDK?
Give me just *one* reason it even matters.
There are no undocumented APIs - there are undocumented APIs BUT
Credibility = 0.0
MS rocks - back and forth on a series of critical issues thus it has no
credibility SO who cares to keep track of the lie of the week. The story
will change and MS will defeat themselves again and again.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/11soft.html
"The public has reaped substantial benefits from
Microsoft's development of Windows and other
software products," the company said. "Many of these
benefits would not have been possible but for
Microsoft's unified structure, which enables Microsoft to
conceive and implement new ideas that span operating
systems and applications."
...
In the recent past, Microsoft's leaders have said there
there was a "church and state" separation within the
company between the Windows group and the others
that develop applications programs.
--
From: "John W. Stevens" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:18:12 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not what the Linux Journal article this month says. It goes on
for pages explaining how to share a printer. And BTW they give
examples with SWAT also.
No way is it as easy as WIndows...
Not even close.
You say that, 'cause you don't understand that the contexts are
different.
Stop attacking me and provide a step by step procedure.
1) Put CD into CD-ROM drive.
2) Run configuration tool (which reads machine configuration data from
CD).
Done!
Yeesh! Obviously, you don't understand that the difference here is:
canned configurations.
On a Linux box, using the supplied Linux documentation, you can create
your own configurations.
On a Windows box, you used the default ("canned") configuration, but you
can do the exact same thing under Linux . . . use a canned
configuration.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: "John W. Stevens" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:21:14 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What kind of an idiotic answer is that?
People want to share internet connections.
People want to share resources (printers).
People want some kind of security protection.
And people would like it to be simple to set up.
You are saying that this is not an important set of items?
Sure it is! Of course, until MS supplied this, Windows advocates used
to argue that this was simply not stuff that the "average computer user
wanted, or needed".
Suddenly, now it is . . . strange, eh?
Windows makes this extremely easy and as of yet nobody has shown me
precisely how Linux is at least as easy.
Linux is at least this easy. In many ways, it is even easier, since the
same process you use to install "canned" defaults, can be used to
regularly check those defaults.
A half answer like "Samba comes installed" is not an answer.
So again:
How about an answer.
Already given in another reply to you. Look there.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Leblanc)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advo
