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 #452
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 15:13:12 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
DVD on Linux? ("Andy Walker")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: DVD on Linux? (Salvador Peralta)
Weekly Posting: Where to Find Linux Frequently Asked Questions with Answers
(Pointer) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:09:21 +
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 7 Apr 2001 14:06:02 -0500...
...and Logan Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, TeX is decent, reliable, and available for every single platform
I've ever heard of in my life (except PalmOS, but I might be wrong
about even that). But, a typesetting tool like that might be overkill
for many purposes.
Is there a DVI viewer for PalmOS?
mawa
--
Shoot someone, get shot. Sounds good, at least in theory.
Have people think you shot someone, get shot. Who will shoot them?
-- mawa in a mail to Eric S. Raymond
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 18:36:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roger Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's reality, Roberto. Not opinion. My graduate degree is in
International Relations so I am familiar with this field. You bring up
generalities and expect specifics in return.
Uh? If bringing up the US support of Pinochet and the answer is
"the US acts in the best interest of the US" I think you are
the one trading specifics for generalities.
Just because you don't like my
answers doesn't make them incorrect.
Just because they are yours, that doesn´t make them specific.
--
Roberto Alsina
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 18:40:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"T. Max Devlin"
So "though shalt not assassinate" means murder is wrong but killing is
OK? "Though shalt not slay" means the same thing? Sounds more to me
like it isn't so much murder as killing of a human (as opposed to
killing a calf, which obviously isn't going to fly in the Old
Testament.) Which is to say, it says "though shalt not kill", as
indicated, despite this linguistic quibbling that you use to try to
justify war.
Read Exodus and Numbers. God instructed the Israelites to wage war and kill
entire populations. The quibble is using one verse from scripture to state
all killing is wrong, when in fact, use of that one verse of scripture to
support such a position is wrong.
Suppose instead of God, your general (when you were in the army)
told you "don´t kill people". Then later, he told you "kill these
specific persons".
You would probably not see any contradiction if you went and killed
those specific persons, right?
It would be logical, for a theocratic army, to kill if told God
ordered to kill, even if god had previously ordered not to kill
in general, because it would be a more specific command.
Now, if you are using the bible to support war, I will agree it
makes sense, as soon as you mention me when god told you to wage
war against whom.
--
Roberto Alsina
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 18:42:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:27:55 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roberto Alsina wrote:
billh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Roberto Alsina"
That would be a sin of omission in catholicspeak.
Since you said in another post, "Well, I don't really give a damn about
the
bible, to be honest", why do you conitue to speak from the "catholic"
point
of view
I don't speak from a catholic point of view, I speak from my point of
view.
In this particular case, it's close to there.
or use "catholic
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: RTFM at M$ (Brent R)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Mig)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
Re: State of linux distros (Bob Hauck)
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Adam Warner")
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Adam Warner")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Bobby Shaftoe")
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (mlw)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Peter Hayes)
Re: State of linux distros (Peter Hayes)
Re: Stability of 2.4.1? (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: RTFM at M$ (Glitch)
Re: It's just too easy (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked! ("Adam Warner")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Mark Duell")
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Glitch)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: Brent R [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:55:13 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Brent R wrote:
SPAMMERS use that trick a lot. There's also some way to enter in URL as
octal, hex, and binary numbers but I forget how; and there's a way to
'comment out' characters in the middle of addresses.
Why browsers allow this is beyond me.
Well, if you're going to allow a browser to accept code, shouldn't
you also allow it to accept "comments".
HAW HAW HAW!!!
Chris
NO, I figured that's why it did it, but... why would you need comments
in a URL?
--
From: Mig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:55:43 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
"Shane Phelps" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Chad,
We're still waiting for all this evidence about shoddy encryption in SSH
Please enlighten us
BTW, I've taken the liberty of cross-posting this to comp.security.ssh
:-)
I've already listed the exploits. They may have been patched, but how
many systems out there are patched? If SSH is so great, why then does
it have so many vulnerabilities?
Why is SSH1 considered "fundamentally flawed" by its own makers?
You are an embaressment Chad. You actually managed to lower the quality of
the advocacy groups. Its time for you to get out of this thread Chad... i
hoped you allready had done that since you've been quit for a few days.
It has been pointed to you again and again by people that work on SSH that
you dont know what youre talking about (neither do I and I use ssh
irregularly). You simply are not capable of understanding the issues and
everything has been explained to you... so help your self and read the FAQ
at www.openssh.net... just click under Resources on your left.. there's
even a manual
--
Cheers
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.dev.null
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 24 Feb 2001 20:58:32 GMT
In article NJTl6.7512$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Chad Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've already listed the exploits. They may have been patched, but how
many systems out there are patched? If SSH is so great, why then does
it have so many vulnerabilities?
Why is SSH1 considered "fundamentally flawed" by its own makers?
This is the same message you posted over a week ago. What, the flame
war was dying down? You needed to repost it?
You're wrong about there being any exploits. There are a few potential
vulnerabilities that are so hard to exploit that the ONE suspected ssh
compromise turned out to be a stolen password. Even if nobody patched
any of those SSH1 systems, they would still be safer than any sites
*not* using SSH... including ones using Microsoft's remote management
software, because SSH has far fewer vulnerabilities than most software,
even security software. You came up with a list of *three* issues, all
minor, all fixed, all sufficiently hard to exploit that nobody's
actually done so... that's insanely good, compared to most of the stuff
out there.
Finally, the author of SSH has an economic interest in convincing people
to use SSH2 instead of SSH1, so you need to take anything he says about
them with a grain of salt.
Followups set to an alt group I created for this purpose ten years ago.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U`"A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 11:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (sfcybear)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (sfcybear)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (sfcybear)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (sfcybear)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Gary Hallock)
Re: Windows 2000 (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Windows Stability (Andres Soolo)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Edward Rosten)
From: "Chad Myers" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:12:59 GMT
"J Sloan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Chad Myers wrote:
Ok, what is khttpd then?
an experimental kernel based web server
So it's a kernel based web server, that's exactly what I was talking about.
Please post a URL of the specweb 99 results. The results I recall
reading only had WinNT/IIS, Linux/Apache, and Linux/Tux.
I don't know of any specweb results for khttpd.
sigh
You just said that kttpd kicked IIS's ass in specweb99, so please admit
you were wrong, or show me the results.
Microsoft wouldn't write a hack httpd just to win a single
benchmark and then claim they're the best web server around.
In the first place, Red Hat never claimed tux was the best
around - they let the figures speak for themselves.
In the second place, it was not a "hack httpd", but a clever
and innovative web server, and a showcase for the scalability
of the Linux kernel.
In a benchmark... real stable. In real world? Just like everything
else linux: FLOP.
-Chad
--
From: "Chad Myers" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:14:45 GMT
"J Sloan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Chad Myers wrote:
So, SuSE ships with lots of beta software. Just because it's beta
in SuSE, doesn't mean that it's not beta anymore.
You can call it what ever you want, that doesn't change
the fact that it is used in poroduction environments, and
works quite well. I'm not sure what the point is that you
are trying to make.
Just because there's some brave souls out there doesn't mean
that the Linux community is about to say: "Linux is enterprise
ready, and we have an enterprise OS called "ReiserFS", it's
good enough to run NASDAQ without worry of fault".
No one has said that, because Reiser isn't production, it hasn't
been released, it hasn't been thoroughly tested in many environments
and it's not going to be taken seriously until it is.
-Chad
--
From: "Chad Myers" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:16:06 GMT
"J Sloan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Chad Myers wrote:
Um, hmm. I never seem to have trouble finding work as a windows
sa or developer
You will. I guarantee it.
Ok, I will mark your words.
Windows developers are in more demand now than ever. With .NET approaching,
there are already training courses sprouting up to get developers up
to speed so they can hit the ground running.
in fact, there are tons of jobs. .NET will make
that even more.
.net is going to be a flop.
Oh right. This from a man that says a beta FS is "production".
You probably don't even know what .NET is.
-Chad
--
From: "Chad Myers" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:19:13 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Chad Myers wrote:
[snip]
Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
mean dittly squat.
Where did you work? At a gas pump?
1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructu
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: C++ is very alive! (mlw)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: KDE2 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
C++ -- Our Industry... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: C++ is very alive!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:19:17 -0500
"p@spamfree" wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mlw says...
It wasn't really a quiz, so much as just a small enumeration of things
that one should know.
I think you are confused by the same culture that equates spell checking
quizes with intellegence.
a good engineer or scientist, knows how research and find the details and
techniques needed to solve a problem.
If I have a sorting problem in front of me, I can very easily look up
the references on sorting and refresh myself with the advantages and
disadvantages of each, and choose the best one for the problem.
smart people know where to search for information, they do not memorize it.
I fully understand your point and completely agree, but important
concepts are not something you can "look up" they are things you must
understand. This is the difference.
You can look up the formula for radio wavelength based on frequency, but
one must understand what this information means to make the antenna the
right length. I have to look in a book to remember how shell sort works,
but that does not mean I do not understand it.
Take for instance, qsort, my favorite example, one must understand how
it works to evaluate it correctly for an application.
I do not equate spelling with intelligence, a spell checker is my best
friend, but I do recognize the difference between spelling and the
ability to describe complex concepts. One can misspell words, but still
be able to form readable sentences.
Should someone not understand the differences between hash tables and
AVL trees? Both can be used for the same thing, but why would you use
one over the other?
How would you find the most important colors in a bitmap to create an 8
bit palette?
Understanding the basic principles of the problem help in finding the
right solution. If you don't understand the basics, you have no frame of
reference from which to start.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
From: Chris Ahlstrom [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 23:28:54 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
What do you mean by this statement?
That to the best of my knowledge, it's highly unrecommended to run linux on
FAT partitions.
I apologize for my english, it's not my first language.
No apology necessary.
I notice some subjective differences when Linux accesses a FAT
disk as opposed to an ext2 disk. But it's a nice way to share
files between the systems on a dual-boot machine, once you
get the permissions worked out, and get used to the quirks
of accessing DOS filenames using linux.
Chris
--
Now that's a whore of a different choler!
--
From: Giuliano Colla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 23:29:55 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000
[...]
Max, listen to me.
I don't object on counters for continuity indicators. It's the simplest
and cleanest solution I can see. I'm well aware that a counter rolls
over to zero. It's the MS implementation what I object to.
You have given the specs for the uptime: a 32 bit value, which is
incremented in units of one hundredth of second, or 10 ms if you prefer.
This allows for a continuous increment during 497 days and something,
then, as any binary value it will become all 1's, and at next increment
it will be all 0's. OK?
That's what anybody would expect from such a specification, and that's
very simple and easy to deal with, if it's intended (as it is) as a
continuity indicator.
Now look what NT does. It exposes a 32 bit value, which is incremented
in units of one hundredth of a second, as per specs, but when it reaches
a value 10 times smaller than the all 1's value (i.e. after 49.7 days,
instead 497) it goes back to zero. To be exact, when it reaches the
binary value 11001100110011001100110011001 it goes back to zero. It's
not a binary counter rolling over to zero!
If you provide a 3 digi
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #29Wed, 4 Oct 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("2 + 2")
Re: GPL freedom ("Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("2 + 2")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (The Ghost In The Machine)
RE: Do Linux suXX??? ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: The return of Drestin Lack-o-facts. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Perry Pip)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Darren Winsper)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (.)
From: Jonathan Revusky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:28:11 +
"Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" wrote:
Jonathan Revusky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
| "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" wrote:
| Jonathan Revusky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
| | "James A. Robertson" wrote:
| | Peter van der Linden wrote:
| |
| | [...] I do somewhat resent you misrepresenting the
| | situation in this way. [...] Do you think that somehow Gary
| | Van Sickle had an unlimited right to make libellous
| | accusations from his anonymous account?
|
| Peter, there's no "unlimited right to make libellous accusations"
| anonymously and I don't recall anybody here arguing over that
| except Revusky. That's his straw-man that he keeps beating, and
| then claiming victory over.
|
| Well, it's not a straw man, Jon. It's quite literally what these
| idiots are maintaining. They are arguing that there is some kind
| of constitutional right to participate in a public forum
| anonymously. Furthermore, when you point out that much of said
Yet you just now dropped the 'unlimited' part, which in the past you
introduced into the debate.
| participation was libellous in nature, they simply repeat their
| claims about the "right to anonymity".
As opposed to the supposed 'unlimited right to anonymity'.
Well, Jon, if the "right to anonymity" they believe in includes the
right to slander others with impunity, never having to show your face,
then it's pretty darned unlimited, don't you think?
I mean, you seem to be desperately trying to snipe at me via my slightly
different choice of words this time -- that I did not include the
"unlimited" part. But I'm not a computer, Jon. I may well say things in
slightly different ways from time to time. But the overall set of views
that I've been espousing are pretty consistent.
| So you're arguing that it would all be okay if the... organs of
| the state were involved somehow. And the fact that they
| weren't is what makes writing a letter of complaint so wrong...
|
| Interesting position. Are you actually willing to maintain that?
Regardless of what my position would be, as Mr. Robertson points out,
discussions with you are generally not worth the time. So, no. I
will, however, occasionally point out misrepresentations of the
record and faulty logic, as I did in the previous post.
IOW, you're not going to answer the question. That would be a waste of
time, I guess. And tiresome. It is tiresome to have to back up what you
say The only thing more tiresome is trying to debate with someone
who refuses to back up what he says because of how tiresome that is
Tiresome squared
sigh
Jonathan Revusky
| [... discussion on ad hominem attacks]
| In the past, in comp.lang.java.advocacy, Revusky regularly added
| ad hominem attacks to his arguments, apparently believing that
| applying it to an argument (often to "cause [...] psychic pain")
| converts it from something to be shunned in a discussion to
| something perfectly reasonable and proper. This is what he
| means, above, when he says "was merely name-calling". Mr.
| Robertson is justified, IMO, claiming that he just didn't want to
| discuss with Revusky; it is tiring, for the reason he mentions.
Revusky wrote:
|
| You know, Jon, I don't even think that you are debating any of
| this out of sincerity. It's just that you're mad at me, have felt
| humiliated by me in various exchanges, and are desperately trying
| to get back at me in any way possible. I don't believe that
| anything you're saying here corresponds to any profound
| convictions on your part. Certainly, it's very half-baked, not
| very well thou
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Andrew J. Brehm)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (aflinsch)
From: "Christopher Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:24:06 +1000
"Donal K. Fellows" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8ngq7e$e86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article 8ng0ul$l8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Stephen S. Edwards II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron R. Kulkis) wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[worthless stuff elided]
Hmmm...
- Every argument he makes never has any facts in it.
- Has a smug and condesceding attitude.
- He has a very long and annoying .signature.
I dunno about you Christopher, but I've run out of
reasons to keep this guy viewable any longer.
*PLOINK!*
I ditched him for his stupid .sig ages ago. Most people round here
seem to be guilty from time to time of fact-free argument and bad
attitude, but very few hand out a (long) page full of canned diatribe
with every post...
As did I. Anyone with a .sig that big claiming to be a Unix engineer
clearly has serious problems with reality.
--
From: "Christopher Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:32:06 +1000
"rj friedman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:53:28 Chris Wenham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
¯ Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
¯ being wrong and you being right. Stick your head in the sand
¯ and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
¯ to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
¯ And why are you so full of coprolalia?
Full of what?
Needless profanity. It seems to be an OS/2 advocate characteristic.
¯ Just debate the facts, man...
What facts are there to debate. The United States of America
has spoken - MS has been proven guilty. The European Union,
China, Japan, and India have all opened investigations of
their own.
Sonny boy - for whatever ulterior motives he is coming
from/with - can try to say that he doesn't like the law so
No "ulterior motives" whatsoever. Keep on thinking it if you like, however,
it's keeping me very entertained.
therefore MS isn't guilty of anything. But half the world
has told him that he is full of shit. And all his pro-MS
America is "half the world" now ?
posturing aside, deep down in his heart he KNOWS he is full
of shit.
Cool, I always love being analysed by wanna-be psychiatrists.
¯ Jeez. If he's wrong then it ought to be
¯ easy.
IF??? Please tell me that you are not going to pretend that
MS WASN'T found guilty.
*sigh*
You still don't get it.
In any case, I don't ever recall having said they weren't.
--
From: "Christopher Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:33:34 +1000
"JS/PL" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Joseph" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
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 this very questioning of authority which founded the United States,
and it is his very attitude which makes him a (more) solid American.
I'm an Australian ;). Fortunately we also have a long history of Problems
With Authority.
--
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #27Tue, 4 Jul 00 12:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: TPC-C Results for W2k revisited. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (The Ghost In The Machine)
BUFFOON of the YEAR AWARD!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Another CommyLie-nux Commy expoased! (was: Re: Richard Stallman's (Charlie
Ebert)
Re: TPC-C Results for W2k revisited. (mlw)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond
(was Re: Linux is junk)) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Paul Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Paul Smith")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: TPC-C Results for W2k revisited.
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 14:52:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Truckasaurus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on Tue, 04 Jul 2000 11:07:38 GMT 8jsghj$76c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From
Message-ID: 88hj0m$21r3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
"Subject: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: 02/17/2000
Author: John Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enjoy.
Compaq Proliant 8500-550-96P (W2K Advanced Server, SQL Server 2000)
Cost : $4,341,603
TPC-C Throughput : 227,079.15
Price/Performance : $19.12
Number of Users : 216,000
(...)
http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Compaq/compaq.8500.96P.000
21702.es.pdf
http://www.tpc.org/new_result/c-result1.idc?id=99110201
http://www.tpc.org/new_result/c-result1.idc?id=99092701
http://www.tpc.org/new_result/c-result1.idc?id=99032301"
But where is this fantastic result now???
(http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc)
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dunno, but as of 7/4, the top 10 results sorted by
price/performance are all Microsoft.
Rank Company System
tpmC
Price/tpmC
System availability
Database
Operating System
TP Monitor
Date Submitted
The third one down is Win2K:
3 Compaq ProLiant DL-580R-6700
33507
14.09 US $
08/01/00
Microsoft SQL Server 2000
Microsoft Windows 2000
Microsoft COM+
06/23/00
The 9th entry in the results sorted by performance is
also Microsoft:
9 Compaq ProLiant PDC/O2000-6
101657
35.68 US $
03/31/00
Oracle 8i V8.1.6
Microsoft Windows NT Enterprise Edition 4.0
Compaq DB Web Connector
02/11/00
The 10th entry is almost identical, and might be an older model:
10 Compaq PDC/O2000
99274
39.14 US $
03/31/00
Oracle 8i V8.1.6
Microsoft Windows NT Enterprise Edition 4.0
Compaq DB Web Connector
12/23/99
Lest we think all is lost here, the absolute leader in
performance is IBM:
1 IBM Netfinity 8500R c/s
440879
32.28 US $
12/07/00
IBM DB2 UDB 7.1
Microsoft Windows 2000
Microsoft COM+
07/03/00
although it turns out they're *also* using Win2K.
Sigh.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:07:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on Tue, 04 Jul 2000 07:53:01 GMT 8js54n$vhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in 8jri30$hvj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Troll, I was doing it to show you how inacurate and confusing it was
to
use the generic terms. By bitching about how unclear I was being you
have proven MY POINT.
So you now stoop to insults.
By being unclear you have proven my point. If you had used "Active
Directory" I would have understood. But you didn't did you, you said
"active directory". To me, active directory means the current working
directory. That exists on any machine, including Linux.
Pete
So, I could say "Active Directory is broken so MS Windows sucks" is a
fair statement?
Personally, I'd like to know what Active Directory is (is it related
to LDAP, for example? Did Amiga have a similar capability years
and years ago? :-) ), how precisely it is "broken", and why
Windows depends on it. (I don't have Win2K yet, but I suspect
that Active Directory is a system where a process can register
"intent to monitor changes in a directory", and be notified
through some mechanism that a file was created, a file deleted,
a file modified, etc. -- I'm mildly surprised Linux doesn't
have this, although it's not clear how muc
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #25Wed, 1 Mar 00 04:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Bill Vermillion)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Mark Christensen")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Mark Christensen")
Re: Verwirrung (Arthur)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Donn Miller)
Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks] (Satch)
Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks] (Satch)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Angelos Karageorgiou)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Mike Marion)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 05:36:40 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Angelos Karageorgiou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Vermillion wrote:
And the sad part is that there are 64bit processors out there that
MS did support - but no longer.
Remember when MS promoted NT as being cross-platform. Four
supported processor families. Down to one now.
S'Ok , Linux and Netbsd run on just about every type of machine
available so it will not be an issue.
I was thinking more along the line of the failed 'promises' of MS.
After all NT was to be the Unix killer and Unix was platform
independant while MS ran only in the iNTEL world. That was part of
their hype. Wonder what else they may have lied about ? :-)
I can have my wristwtch, PDA , home pc , office server and corporate
server all on different CPUs and different BUSes and silicon, use
any OpenSource OS. Life can go on happily without chugging a penny
for inferior software :-)
Well I've been running Unixen OSes since 1983 - and I did fire up
Win98 two days ago to print a Word or Excel thingy - on the inkjet
attached to my FreeBSD system. Works quite well I might add.
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
--
From: "Mark Christensen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 06:22:49 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The right to property would be the main capitalist principal I would cite.
Denial of the validity of intellectual property is a thinly vieled attack
on
the right to property. The second principal I would cite is that
enlightened
self interest is an essential precursor to productivity. In particular,
you can hurt or destroy an industry by attacking its means to generate
revenue.
The "cosource" advocates have not offered instances of companies that have
profited from developing end user applications. In other words, they are
unable to offer evidence that destroying copyright would not destroy the
application software industry.
Well, as you probably already have guessed, I am not entirely convinced that
intellectual property and capitalism are inexorably intertwined.
However, I agree that enlightened self interest is a central factor in
determining the projects people choose to take on. This coupled with
intellectual property law's history of promoting the generation of
literature, art, and non-fiction books, tells me that intellectual-property
(as we know it) is not entirely without merit. That however is not an
admission that intellectual property is a "good thing."
I say this because I believe that intellectual property ought not be
understood as an innate right. Instead, I am convinced that we would be
better off if we saw it as the product of an inevitable tension between the
right to profit from intellectual labor, and the (in my view) inalienable
right to freedom of thought and speech. And therefore our notions of
intellectual property are only justifiable insofar as they are necessary to
provide compensation for intellectual labors and their restriction of my
right to freedom of thought and speech are minimal.
While copyright law and patent law may well have been functional 50 or 100
years ago, when the printing press was the chief information technology, I
don't think they work well in toady's high speed massively networked world.
Moreover, what interests me most about the GPL and the free software
movement is that it has produced a license which demands that we be creative
about how to profit from our intellectual labors. And that is still very
much an experiment in progress, but the preliminary results have been very
very promising. The number of people cashing in on their "linux expertise"
is astonishing, especially when they are specifically disallowed from
profiting by traditional means.
And whether intellectual property law is nec
