Linux-Advocacy Digest #462
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Clark Safford)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux has one chance left. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux has one chance left. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Roy Culley)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Roy Culley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Roy Culley)
Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Roy Culley)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux in college & high school (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 12 May 2001 19:45:17 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, because unix systems stay up longer. Remember the
"awesome"
> > MTTF
> > > > > > > that Windows 2000 exhibits? LOL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I do. And W2K stays up every bit as long as unix systems.I
know
> > you
> > > > > > won't admit it or can't imagine it but that's your problem not
ours.
> > > > > Why does Microsoft rely so heavily on clustering technology? when
you
> > > > > can get a big iron like a SunFire w/ 16 x Sparc III CPUS, or an
z900
> > > > > mainframe that can stay up for years, requiring little or no
> > > > > maintainance. I would be quite interested in a Windows 2000
Server
> > vs.
> > > > > SUN Sunfire midframe, without clustering technology, and see the
> > uptimes
> > > > > of them.
> > > >
> > > > Can't speak of uptime, because it's usually to expensive (and long)
to
> > > > benchmark those.
> > > > But according to TCP.ORG, in the unclustered category, Win2K win on
> > > > price/performance.
> > > > On unclustered/clustered category, Win2K wins *both*
price/performance &
> > > > performance.
> > > If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times.
> > >
> > > TPC is not a universal benchmark. People must be paying members to
submit
> > > results. Because of this only certain configurations ever get listed,
and
> > thus
> > > is not usable as a fair and equal benchmark.
> > >
> > > Second, the OS has little to do with TPC results. It is mostly
database
> > and
> > > configuration.
> > >
> > > TPC results have no place in an OS discussion.
> >
> > Interesting how often TPC results were mentioned BEFORE W2K took the
lead...
>
> Really? I have never seen anyone stupid enough to confuse a database
benchmark
> with an OS benchmark before the Winvocates started grabbing at the first
thing
> they thought was helpful to their cause.
Then you have
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #33Mon, 9 Apr 01 10:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (pip)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (pip)
Re: Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V (Was: t. max devlin: kook) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: t. max devlin: kook ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman (Isaac)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (mlw)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Mott The Hoople)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Scott R. Godin")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Scott R. Godin")
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman ("JD")
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant ("Ben L. Titzer")
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:11:14 +0100
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> First of all, I said CD-WRITER YOU FUCKING LUSER
> Second of all, get a type writer and give everyone a break.
> Thirdly, why did you use Linux?
Calm down Matt!
While you and I _can_ get the old CD-Writer working under Linux, I would
not say that the process was "easy". Making IDE-APTI cd-writer into a
pseudo scsi device using new kernel modules would certainly put off many
people who are not really into computers. So in a sense, I have some
sympathy with the "it's too hard" comments. If we are to take Linux to
the people then we will have to change the RTFM attitude and let
intuitive interfaces and even better automatic configuration scripts
take their place. While the OP may have been a troll, there is a seed of
truth in everything. It would be nice to let people without an extensive
knowledge base use Linux easily, and this is a tricky thing to do
without making the compromises that Mafia$oft of Apple has.
--
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:24:56 +0100
"kirk@do_not_spam" wrote:
>
> If anyone thinks this junk will compete with windows they must be
> out of their minds.
This "junk" is already winning in the server space. Think again.
> And before anyone tells me I am a newbie, I am not.
Of course you are. Why would you be having these problems otherwise? A
non-newbie would have read the appropriate How-To and came up with the
answer or asked a polite question in a help-related Linux newsgroup (and
there are several how-to's that allowed me to do what you are trying to
do without such a headache)
> I can't believe this. why, I ask why, can't linux be as simple as windows?
Good question. It is more flexible than Windows, but it is not as easy
yet, as people it is quite complex to make things "easy" for some users
while not restrict the experience of more seasoned users. Also some
parts of how Linux work are "brain damaged" through various reasons, but
these are getting corrected one by one.
> anyone who think this stuff will challenge windows must be on drugs, and
> I really mean that.
If you had properly asked for help or read the documentation, maybe you
would have had a better experience, yet as we sow what we reap you have
failed. Insulting something just because you can't get it to work does
not mean that suddenly Windows is "better" than Linux. If you find
CD-Writing better in Windows then may I suggest that you go back to
windows and use it. If you try to treat your OS as a "tool" then you'll
find that different tools are good at different tasks and the OS is no
different. Maybe your skill level is such that you need the ease of use
of windows, and there is nothing wrong with that: just use the tool that
is best suited to you - but don't come and say that because you have had
a bad day that everything is no good. In other words: grow up!
--
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V (Was: t. max devlin: kook)
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:36:42 GMT
"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
>
> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> >> - Control/C, Control/X, and Control/V
> >
> >I remember using RH 6, with copy, cut, paste, were alt instead of ctrl, it
> >drove me *mad*.
It's easy to get used to the difference... in fact, I sometimes find
myself using Alt-
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #32 Sun, 25 Feb 01 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dave Vandervies)
Re: RTFM at M$ ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: State of linux distros (Ray Chason)
Re: How much do you *NEED*? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: The Windows guy. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: State of linux distros (Aaron Kulkis)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 04:41:14 GMT
In article <979q95$6dk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dave Vandervies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Really?
>
>
>dj3vande@mef08:~ (0) $ cat > foo.c
>#include
>
>double deg2rad(double degrees) )
That line was supposed to be
double deg2rad(double deg)
but it appears that my editor decided to interpret the backspaces the
way cat did when I typed them instead of showing them to me so that I
could clean them up.
>{
> return deg * M_PIl / 180;
>}
>dj3vande@mef08:~ (0) $ gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -O -c foo.c
>foo.c: In function `deg2rad':
>foo.c:5: `M_PIl' undeclared (first use in this function)
>foo.c:5: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
>foo.c:5: for each function it appears in.)
>foo.c:6: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
>dj3vande@mef08:~ (1) $
>
>
>Funny, it doesn't seem to be defined in _my_ math.h...
dave
--
Dave Vandervies[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We always tell people NOT to mess with their headers, and what do you
do? You go and mess with your headers. Honestly, I despair sometimes.
--Richard Heathfield flames Dan Pop in comp.lang.c
--
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:19:22 -0600
"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Le0m6.6258$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I fail to understand the correlation. MS blocks pings at the border,
long
> > before it gets to a machine other than a router. This is to prevent the
> > most common DoS attacks.
>
> I thought the most common DoS attacks were SYN floods.
Not just pings, but all ICMP.
Notice the routers name:
icpmscomc7503-a0-00-1.cp.msft.net
Most DoS attacks are ICMP based.
> I've never heard
> of a DoS attack with normal, short, non-broadcast pings (and a quick
> google search failed to point me to any - I would be grateful if anyone
> could show me a documented case).
They block all ICMP.
> Why do yahoo.com, google.com, and
> other high-profile sites not see the need to block valid pings?
Because they don't tend to be as large a target as MS is. MS is bombarded
daily by script kiddies, and only very seldom do they succeed.
> Not
> that I'm going to lose sleep over MS pings, but it just seems to be
> another small example of MS doing things their "own way".
It's actually getting to be quite common. Try pinging www.netscape.com,
www.aol.com, www.att.com, www.gm.com, etc..
> If they've
> been blocking them for 3 or more years, maybe blocking all pings was
> just a quick-and-dirty fix to their NT "ping-of-death" bug a few years
> back, that they didn't bother to unfix after the NT patch.
No, since pinging them is not all that productive, why leave a potential
hole open?
> I have heard of ultra-paranoid security people recommending blocking
> pings, although more to "hide" the system from OS-type detection via
> subtle packet "signatures" (nmap program) than to prevent DoS attacks.
Any machine that has a single port open can still be vulnerable to these.
--
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:20:33 -0600
"Brent Pathakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Y90m6.108$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hi Erik,
> > >
> > > > MS has already stated in several places, including the Whistler SDK
> > > > (available online freely to anyone) that the theming API's would not
> > > > be
> > > > released. The reason, is that they want to ensure that all themes
> > > > follow the basic windows
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
More Linux woes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. (David Utidjian)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("ono")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Gary Hallock)
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:56:08 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find backdoors.
> >
> > It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with thousands of people
> > looking at the source code.
>
> Per my other post, there are exactly 35 developers on the Firebird project.
> Some of them have joined relatively recently. SourceForge shows that no one
> has downloaded their pre-release kits yet.
>
> Your "thousands of people" are as vaprous as closed-source security is.
But what about the thousands who supposedly review Linux. From developers,
to watchdog groups, to tinkerers, you'd think most of the obvious bugs would
be flushed out immediately. However, every shipping Linux release from
all major distributors still comes riddled with security exploits not to
mention all other bugs. If Open Source is so superior, and all this
peer review actually happens as you people say, then how are these glaring
bugs slipping through so frequently?
-Chad
--
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:57:16 GMT
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93t6k7$10j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
>
> ---Begin Excerpt---
>
> " We are presented with two choices at this point, we can downgrade the
> operating system to Windows NT 4.0 and use the same high-end, extremely,
> fast network cards or we can stay with Windows 2000 and replace the network
> cards with the lower-end, but still server-class, network cards. We have
> opted for the first plan as this is a configuration which we have used and
> know works. At this point, we do not want to experiment with our clients
> only to find out that the lower-end network cards are not sufficient to the
> task.
>
> ---End Excerpt ---
>
> Is it true that "Microsoft has not released any figures on corporation W2K
> server migration figures, almost a year after its release."? I'd appreciate
> links to any articles if they are available.
>
> Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are flaky under the 2.4
> Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?
Sounds like a driver issue, wouldn't you say.
Do you want to get into how bad drivers are on Linux?
I don't think you do.
-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 21:58:46 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "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.
>
> Funny, I could swear you were talking about tux, the Red Hat
> Linux webserver. Tux is a separate subject from khttpd.
We were talking about Tux. Tux was run in kernel-mode on the SpecWeb tests.
> > You just said that kttpd kicked IIS's ass in specweb99, so please admit
> > you were wrong
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #30 Mon, 27 Nov 00 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. ("kiwiunixman")
This place Pays out great and its FUN ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler review. ("kiwiunixman")
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 06:42:30 GMT
What do you have to prove with that post? Look at Windows 2000 Pro, 650MB, a
base installation, compare that to, say, Redhat Linux, which maybe a little
bigger in size, but includes valuable third party tools such as tar, gzip,
and StarOffice.
I have nothing against Commercial Software, if fact I am an out right
capitalist, however, Microsoft has a reputation for churning out shyte so
that customers (like your self) think because it comes from Microsoft it
must be good. I am very soon moving from Linux to either a Sun Workstation
(Solaris 8) or an SGI O2 Workstation (IRIX 6.5), both have extremely stable
OS's, something Microsoft needs to learn about. If you get ya rocks off
running windows, and talking to your uneducated simpleton friends about it's
so-called merits, then so be it, but don't expect the educated elite (aka
UNIX users and people who question Microsoft and other so-called "market
leaders") to listen your shyte.
kiwiunixman
Matthew Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron, get a life. The guy likes Whislter, so be it. Leave him alone.
In fact, i like
> it too. My eng. buddies and I love it. Beats the hell outta Linux for
usability. Take a
> look a KDE2, ultimate bug shit edition. GNOME, ultimate bloat-ware and
bug shit
> edition. Both segfault quite frequently. So, what does this say about
Whislter? More
> commercial software that beats the hell outta the free crap software
available for Linux,
> and it will ensure the continues future of Windows' domination over the
industry. 'Nuff
> said. Pay for software, yes, for people who don't pirate. People who do,
it's smooth
> sailing.
>
> Now i can almost see you refuting my statement. Let me save you time.
Don't bother.
> You'll be wrong about 90 % of time. Have a nice day.
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > I've finally gotten whistler (pro, 2296, beta 1), and I'm *liking* it.
> >
> > Junkie scores a new bag of heroin...and he likes it!
> >
> > Alert CNN!
> >
> > Clue for the fucking clueless:
> >
> > Ayende...you're a Monopolysoft addict
> >
> > > For those of you who doesn't know what this is, whistler is an the new
OS
> > > (the one that will inherit both win2k & win ME) from Microsoft,
destined to
> > > finally eliminated the 9x line.
> >
> > We'ver heard this song and dance for the last 5 years...
> >
> > >
> > > Here is my biased review.
> > ^^
> >
> > Understatement of the week.
> >
> > > I'm going to limit myself to comments about the new GUI and features
of the
> > > OS, as this a Beta1, it's not yet appropriate to talk about performace
and
> > > stability yet.
> >
> > Why not? A beta-test Gould PT/X system had uptimes of over 10 weeks...
> > and that was before we discovered hardware bugs on the memory boards!
> >
> > >
> > > Starting with the install, you stick the cd in the drive, set the BIOS
to
> > > boot from the CD, and you are done.
> > > Strangely enough, I have the system up and running without returning
to the
> > > BIOS to change the settings, and it's still working.
> >
> > Linux had this years ago. What's your fucking point?
> >
> > >
> > > The installation itself is pretty similar to Windows 2000, blue screen
in
> > > text mode, and afterward the familiar wizard style.
> > > The main difference is that it's now uses the "simpler start menu" as
a
> > > background.
> >
> > Fascinatinga new .bmp file.
> >
> > > Installation took little longer than an hour, most of the time to
format a
> > > NTFS HD.
> > > After the text mode, which require some little knowledge in the
computer's HD,
> >
> > This is *intuitive* ???
> >
> > What would happen if the average Joe LoseDOS-luser had to provide
> > information about his HD before getting his LoseDOS machine to work?
> >
> > > the installer
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #29Thu, 5 Oct 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (.)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Todd")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 00:02:33 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 19:47:26 -0500, Bryant Brandon
@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@
@>In article
@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>
@>@>@>@>Before I run around trying to prove
@>@>@>@>things for you, would you mind telling me what all I need to prove
@>@>@>@>before I begin? You have a nasty habit of applying "bully rules"
@>@>@>@>to
@>@>@>@>your conversations. ie, changing the rules midway when you start
@>@>@>@>losing.
@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@You have a nasty habit (you've done it here in this PC discussion of
@>@>@>@your lab's issues) of blaming a lot of things without having a shred
@>@>@>@of proof. I'm merely pointing out to you that you don't have that
@>@>@>@proof, so you really don't have any idea what's wrong or whether
@>@>@>@quotas/profiles are at fault (or would help).
@>@>@>
@>@>@> You don't want me to prove it. OK.
@>@>@
@>@>@I don't? I didn't say that. Learn to read. I said you can't because
@>@>@you don't have proof. You aren't capable of doing so. You may want
@>@>@to do it, but it probably isn't going to happen.
@>@>
@>@> I told you to be specific in what you wanted me to prove, and you
@>@>refused. So, no matter what I prove, you'll later saddle it with more
@>@>qualifiers/exceptions, and make me prove it all over again. But as
@>@>soon
@>@>as you're willing to tell me what to prove, I'll be happy to prove it.
@>@
@>@Prove the disk issue would be solved by quotas.
@>
@> No. I made no statement that it would, and in fact, I argued to the
@>contrary.
@
@>---
@>Message-ID:
@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:12:13 -0500
@>@@>@Sure. Now, do you typically have thousands of users logging into a
@>@@>@single machine *locally*?
@>@@>
@>@@> No, just about thirty. Argument still holds, just with fewer users
@>@@>and more data per user.
@>@@> So, quotas don't help? Then why did you bring them up?
@>@@
@>@@Quotas help. Do you not understand how quotas help? What part of
@>@@"quota" didn't you understand? Yes, too many profiles can overwhelm a
@>@@hard drive, but that's not a likely scenario at all.
@>@
@>@ It seems to have happened. Yes, I understand quotas, but you implied
@>@that they can solve this problem. They cannot.
@>---
@>
@> When I tell you to learn to read, I'm not kidding. You have no
@>reading comprehension skill at all. Dumbass.
@
@YOU, in fact, are the 'dumbass'. You incorrectly assume that "too
@many profiles have overwhelmed the hard drive" when in fact you have
@no proof of that in any way, shape, or form. You have made
@ASSumptions every step of the way here, and my comment was intended to
@simply draw attention to that fact.
You asked if it can happen. The machine in question is proof that it
can happen, simply because it has w2k installed on it. You see, we've
been discussing thoughout this thread how the profiling thingy works.
You have stated yourself, numerous times, that it is possible that a
machine can fill the harddrive with profiles under w2k's system.
Here's the proof:
=
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:10:53 -0500
@>So, even if each user has a quota of one byte,
@>enough unique users can fill up the system.
@
@Sure.
=
@>@> It's not my fault you cannot write intelligently.
@>@
@>@I write *very* intelligently; you're spinning.
@>
@> See above, dumbass.
@
@Indeed, 'dumbass'.
Hmm
@>@I write *very* intelligently; you&#x
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Spammers and such.
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Richard)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates)
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Richard)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: there are plenty of good paradigms (Richard)
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux Presidential Candidates? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Spammers and such.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:08:53 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have been getting an awful lot of spam lately. Almost all of it is
> coming from this newsgroup being scanned for email addies.
>
> Anyway, I wanted to pose a question to the group to see if it's
> something everyone has noticed. In the past couple of months, I keep
> getting more and more spam. I didn't sign up for anything more (but
> have posted a lot to this and a couple of other newsgroups), and I
> haven't dealt with a lot of the companies in question. But, I have
> noticed that the more recent spam attacks have been adding a line
> about complying with all spamming laws and such. It's my assumption
> they just put that line in there so that people 'think' they comply
> with the law, when in fact they are just skirting it anyway.
>
> My question is, has anyone else noticed this? And if so, is anyone
> familiar with the law in question and whether or not they are actually
> 'fully complying' with said law? I'm just curious about this little
> subject and wondered what the group had to say.
I have noticed this as well. I have not responded to any of them except for
the one that really went overboard. Those few that I have responded to are
not around any more.
I don't know just what the law says about this. Normal spam I treat like
junk mail I toss it away. Those that arrive under false pretenses or are
clear scams that could hurt the less warry, I take action on.
As of now I have received two spams made to appear as email followups to my
postings in COLA. There have been some other ploys like the spam email that
begins with "This is NOT spam, this is a reply to your request for further
information". They are not directing that comment to the addresse but to
any authorities that the addresse might take the spam to for action.
--
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:17:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >The closest that psychology has to do with rationality is that it
> >*uses* rationality as an ideal; psychology has no say in what is and
> >isn't rational. It's PHILOSOPHY that defines *ALL* of those things!
>
> Whether or not they define those terms is irrelevant to whether
> psychologists have useful things to say about them.
A perfectly valid point. And the answer to your implicit question is
'no'. PsychologY (1) does not have anything useful to say about the
interrelationships between self-interest, rationality, interest of
others, and morality. These are things that are completely within
the domain of philosophy. What psychology has a lot to say about is
how and why rationality breaks down, under what conditions morality
develops, how strong people's self-interest is, et cetera. But this
is not what I was talking about, is completely outside of the context
of the discussion (which revolved around whether these things are
mutually exclusive or not) and is *waay* outside of its scope.
(Sorry Morphis, but if you're going to take potshots in the dark,
be prepared to miss *big time*. And why didn't you think to cut
me some slack for having to deal with Perry?)
> > >Most psychologists I have met share that "delusion".
> >And *NO* philosopher I've met has thought that there is a large
> >overlap between any of these things.
>
> How many philosophers you met? How many have discussed this topic
> in your presence? What year in school are you?
I
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #27Tue, 4 Jul 00 21:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux code going down hill (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Michael Marion)
Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this! (Michael Marion)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this! (Michael Marion)
Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this! (Michael Marion)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Tim Palmer)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Tim Palmer)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Tim Palmer)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 23:10:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 4 Jul 2000 21:49:27 GMT <8jtm57$gn1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Customer lock-in is what IBM is all about. That's why their
>>> mainframe systems are the ONLY ones in the world using EBCDIC
>>> rather than ASCII...
>>>
>>
>> That's why (well, one reason) I'm moving from VM/CMS to Linux for
>> S/390 - no more EBCDIC.
>
>How can you move from VM on an S/390 to linux on an S/390 and lose EBCDIC?
Who says we've lost it? :-)
dd conv=ascii if=ebcdic_file of=ascii_file
dd conv=ebcdic if=ascii_file of=ebcdic_file
dd conv=ibm if=ascii_file of=ebcdic2_file (different mapping?)
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- dd. It slices, it dices, it chops, it slops, it
even does julienne fries! :-)
--
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 00:10:05 GMT
Subject:
A pinch of bullshit. In Pete's own words.
Pete Goodwin wrote:
Sniping {}
> >Yes it is. I'm conversing with a 13 year old again.
>
> Uhuh. So you can't deal with reality, eh, Charlie. You have to invent an
> excuse. "This guy doesn't agree with, therefore he must be a thirteen year
> old". Oh yeah, that explains everything.
Yeah, I think that explains everything Pete.
>
>
> >Ohhh, you've bitched about more than that Pete.
> >You've made statements about Windows 95, Windows 3.11, Dos even.
> >You've said NT wasn't as good as 2000.
>
> I've never mentioned Windows 3.11.
> I've rarely mentioned DOS.
>
Okay. So you have mentioned 95, and NT then.
Can't remember talking about 98 SE then? Or perhaps
you don't want to reference it because I didn't.
That's extremely convinent.
>
> >What haven't you hit?
>
> What are you hitting right now Charlie?
I'm hitting on the fact that your totally full of bullshit.
SNIP{}
> >It shares nothing in common with NT. OF course you know this being
> >a Windows programmer. You have the lastest API kit from them don't you?
>
> Well, it has the WIN32 API. It shares that in common with NT. It has SYS
> style device drivers, and the new WDM device drivers, some of it is NT
> technology.
How interesting. Pete, I was wondering...
Do you really feel all the people on COLA are brainless assholes?
>
> >It's building from the past. They don't just THROW the past away and
> >start from the ground floor up.
>
> Sometimes a complete rewrite is a good idea.
That's why most of the things NT used to do for us don't work
under 2000. Simple things like com port support.
>
>
> >Just look at the API calls. The comments in your API development kid.
> >You know, that thing you buy with 13 CD's in it Pete!
>
> Funny how 100% of the API calls in NT are still there in Windows 2000.
>
Part of the reason many calls wouldn't work anymore Pete was
due to their changing the programming interfaces.
Others on newer technology didn't work as their OS wasn't debugged
thoroughly.
Again, do you feel we are all brainless assholes here on COLA?
>
SNIP {}
>
> >More people have heard of Microsoft and Windows then they have of
> >Hitler these days.
>
> Comparing Microsoft to Hitler is really stretching it
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Not so fast... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Slashdot is down (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security. (Perry Pip)
Re: Bob's newsreader ONCE AGAIN fails to tell him that he's crossposting. Or is he
just a moron? ("Sam Morris")
Re: Once again, Bob flaunts his, er, Newbiness ("Sam Morris")
Re: Not so fast... (abraxas)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:24:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 11 May 2000 17:25:10 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I think you might want to check the spelling on that word :)
Indeed, I see "fellate" and "fellatio", but no "fellatiate".
Note that "fellate" = "to engage in fellatio", so I know
I'm close... :-)
Of course, Jeff might simply have been searching for a synonym of
"to suck"...although I for one don't make such a judgement (since
all the context for this particular subthread has been lost
anyway, how can I tell? :-) ), and would avoid telling somebody
that "they suck". (I'd instead say "your idea sucks", perhaps, and
explain why. :-) )
>
>
>On 11 May 2000 14:51:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
>>Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Odd.. I've had a number of people here tell me I fellatiate
>>
>>Dont listen to them. Theyre just bullies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-yttrx
>
>TheCat (Steve)
>
>"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- who is glad this isn't an oral discussion... :-)
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:27:54 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 18:32:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
>> On Thu, 11 May 2000 17:30:26 GMT, Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >JEDIDIAH posted May 11 re: Re: How to properly process e-mail
>> >
>> >| A person should not "need" to be "smart" merely to "open" something.
>> >| That rather defeats the point of an ease-of-use system.
>> >
>> >This response is totally idiotic. Next
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>> You MS Shills will make plenty of noise about computers needing to
>> be like toasters when it suits you.
>
>There, you just proved it. I am NOT a MS shill you moron. I use Linux
Well, sometimes the Razor can slice the wrong way when you iterate
it only once...
>and only Linux. I agree that there is no excuse for the shoddy programming
>that MS gives out, but still, there is such a thing as personal responsability
Bullshit.
Part of what an Operating System does for and end user or an
administrator is setup a sane operating enviroment. Security
should first be the concern of the distributor, THEN the end
user.
One cannot conveniently blame the end user for some lapse on
the part of Redhat or Microsoft. Both parties are PAID for
their expertise.
>and that is what I was saying, your response to my post was moronic in that
>it didn't address what I said, only what you imagined I said. You do that
>quite often.
Defaults should always be sensible, even under Unix at a bash prompt.
Blaming the user simply is not an excuse for piss poor system design.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of'|||
a document? --Les Mikesell/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:28:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 11 May 2000 16:59:19 GMT <8feot7$2kqq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Slashdot is down.
>
>> They always have had their share of technical problems,
>> which is quite embarrassing for a technology forum.
>
>Its working fine for me. Its been a little shakey for
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462
Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #25Wed, 1 Mar 00 20:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (mlw)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mike Marion)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (mlw)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Drestin
Black")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Drestin
Black")
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (Osugi)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (5X3)
Re: w64k - the bugs are being found (5X3)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (JEDIDIAH)
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:16:18 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89jl4a$alg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I am a Linux user and advocate, and a firm critic of Microsoft (I
> > consider it a criminal organization, and do not voluntarily use any of
> > its products).
>
> Well, then you have a completely unfounded and unreasonable bias,
> which clouds the validity of everything else you say in the rest of
> the document...
Microsoft has been ruled an unlawful monopoly, so, not quite unfounded.
[snippage]
>
> >(since NT clustering solutions take into
> > account NT's tendency to fall down under load, and arrange for others
> > to take over with minimal disruption if one should barf).
>
> What? That's complete bullshit. Spare us your unfounded conjecture and
> stick to the facts, please.
It has been reported by many reliable sources that when Windows NT
enters a situation where CPU load is maxed and virtual memory is highly
loaded that it does BSOD.
[snippage]
>
> > Also, NT and W2K run only on a single hardware platform, one designed
> > primarily for workstation rather than server use.
>
> A 8-way Compaq Proliant 8500 is not a workstation, nor is it designed
> to be a workstation.
>
> What planet are you living on, by the way?
Actually, the whole PC architecture is a very poor server platform. I/O
and interrupt bottle necks are the biggest problems. The issue with
multi-processor machines is that while a CPU might be able to process so
many mflops per second, it can not read that much memory over one
second. The CPU spends most of its time waiting.
PC's make very good "multi server farm" modules. Cheap, redundant easy
to replace. As a big ass 24x7, enterprise wide server, leave that for
real computers.
>
> > The cost-effectiveness of x86 servers tends to decline dramatically as
> > the load per box grows past a certain point;
>
> Not really, in fact, the cost effectiveness GROWS! Reference the
> TPC-C benchmarks. As more processors and systems were added to the
> cluster, the performance gains increased.
>
> (8 systems x performance, add 1 system, x + 20% gain, add another system:
> (x+20%)+30%, and on and on)
The TPC-C measurement is a highly specific benchmark. Not a very general
one, it is also tuned for a specific implementation devised by a vendor
to show how well their configuration does. It not indicative of anything
other than a TPC benchmark.
>
> > improvements in the platform over time continue to push that point of
> > diminishing returns upward, but at the present time, neither NT nor W2K,
>
> The point of diminishing returns on a Sun box is reached far before the
> point with a Win2K cluster. Reference: TPC-C
>
> > nor any other x86-based OS, is capable of competing on the high end against
> > platforms that are optimized for better hardware.
>
> That's a lie. Reference TPC-C. And x86 system beat the pants of the
> biggest and baddest that Sun and IBM had to offer. By at LEAST 60%, or as
> much as 80% in the best case.
The TPC-C is not a general benchmark. They even caution people from
using as anything as one reference point. It does not measure
reliability or other such factors.
>
> > The bigger the application, the more costly PC-based solutions become.
>
> Not really.
Usually.
>
> > PCs are not and probably cannot be competitive as high-end servers,
>
> They are, as already illustrated. Again, what planet do you live on?
> Are you really that out of touch with reality, or is that
