Linux-Advocacy Digest #552
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 13:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Mark Styles) Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x (Rich Teer) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (quux111) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Karel Jansens) Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x (C. Newport) Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (2 + 2) Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (2 + 2) Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Matthias Warkus) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (T. Max Devlin) Re: IE (T. Max Devlin) Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x (Raymond N Shwake) From: Mark Styles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:58:39 -0400 On Wed, 16 May 2001 07:02:54 -0400, Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Overhead shouldn't be much money since you don't need office space but can do everything over the Internet. About the only capital expense would be broadband to the home, but most serious software engineers already have that already. What about accountancy costs? Marketing? Web hosting? Travel expenses? Media? Hardware? Employee benefits? You've obviously never had your own business. -- Crossposted-To: alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris,staroffice.com.support.install.solaris,comp.unix.advocacy,alt.os.unix,alt.unix From: Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:09:51 GMT On 16 May 2001, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Because Sun has sales of $15 billion dollars a year, and very little of it was from the OS. More users using the OS and more developers developing for the OS means a larger market to sell hardware to - everything from the $999 SunBlade 100 to the top-of-the-line E1. I agree with this 100%. What I'd like to know is, when will the Forte tools be made available at a more reasonable price? $3,500 is simply too much for a small company like mine that has several machines (so a floating license is required; the individual, nodelocked ones won't do). After all, developers need access to compilers, as well as the OS and hardware! (gcc doesn't cut it for serious development, IMHO, especially for 64 bit stuff.) -- Rich Teer President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-online.net -- From: JS PL hi everybody! Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:11:56 -0400 Edward Rosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9du6kt$ita$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... The majority of suppliers only supply with windows on. I have one question for you: are you trying to be stupid or does it come naturally? I submit that only stupid people can't find a system from a major vendor WITHOUT Linux installed. And there's no one to blame but those same stupid people. Trouble is, most people want windows preinstalled. No, the monoply is to blame. All the places that do the advertising advertise Windows only. That is what most people (stupid or not) see. I see large outlets advertising Apple Computers every day. Most people see that too, but they still choose Windows. With all these choices there can be no monopoly. It's really that simple. Even stupid people can figure out that they have choices. But if they can't, then only they are to blame. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (quux111) Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? Date: 16 May 2001 15:45:49 GMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote in news:9dsvkg$jsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]: quux111 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edward Rosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:9drvnj$bhb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]: When did BSD cease to become UNIX. Technically it never was. Sure it was. -Ed AIUI, BSD is not, and has never been, UNIX(tm). It *is* a Unix, however. The whole is it Unix or aint' it argument has never been less meaningful than now; none of the most popular Unixen are real UNIX(tm). Solaris, like Linux, is a hybrid of SysV and BSD. The *BSDs are all derivates of BSD 4.4, which incorporated pieces of SVR4. Interestingly, the *only* real UNIX(tm) is UnixWare (now owned by Caldera). UnixWare is on the cusp of death, and if it dies, there will be *no* real UNIX(tm) OSes left! Actually, youre quite incorrect. The following have most recently been registered as UNIX(TM) operating systems: AIX 4.3.1 and higher Solaris 7 Solaris 8 The following have been registered as UNIX(TM) operating systems by the Open Group: Tru64 5.0 running on alpha hardware HP/UX 10.2 HP/UX 11.0 AIX 4.2 OS/390 V2R4 NCR UNIX SYSVR4 UX/4800 12.3 SCO unixware 7.0.1 IRIX 6.5 Reliant UNIX 5.43 and higher Solaris 2.6
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552, Volume #33 Thu, 12 Apr 01 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Jerry Coffin)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Chris Morgan)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Kurt Lochner)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New virus attacks Linux and MS OS (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Craig Kelley)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("Jonas")
From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:22:22 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:07:20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote:
[...]
No way. It's what makes computing so much fun.
for most people computing is something they endure to get things done.
That's because they're stuck using monopoly crapware.
[...further trolling ignored...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:23:43 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:01:41
aaron wrote:
[...]
the fact you list more than one is itself part of the problem
if you catch my meaning.
That's something a totalitarian police-state lover would write.
microsoft is not a government you silly boy. [...]
That's not what he said, kid.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
From: Jerry Coffin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:25:13 -0600
In article 9b4s0j$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jerry Coffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In short, Judge Jackson's comments prove a lot more about Judge
Jackson himself than they ever have or will about Microsoft.
Yes, he should have just found Microsoft's counsel guilty of contempt
of court months earlier.
I suspect if it was anyone but Microsoft he would have.
I'd ask you what you're talking about, but from what you've said,
it's already apparent that YOU don't know.
You don't find somebody guilty of contempt of court, you place them
in contempt of court. If you're claiming that somebody lied under
oath, that's not a reason for contempt of court; it's a reason for
them to be charged with perjury. It would be a whole separate trial,
and if they were found guilty, they would quite possibly be sent to
prison.
In any case, the facts so far speak for themselves: every decision
Judge Jackson has made about Microsoft has been appealed. Under
appeal, it's been found that his decisions were at least partly
wrong, so all of them have been reversed in whole or in part. He's
made it quite clear that FAR from being impartial on the subject of
Microsoft, that he's strongly biased against them. The appeals court
has consistently had to straighten out the complete mess he's made of
every case he's heard related to Microsoft, and every indication is
that his decision in this one won't stand either.
Of course they didn't comment on whether his comments were correct or
not: doing so would be just as bad as the comments he made, and it's
quite apparent that the judges on the appeals court know attempt to
DO their duty, rather than making public comments on things they
clearly know they shouldn't. Nonetheless, they've basically made as
harsh of comments about him as they're allowed to without violating
their own duty.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
--
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
From: Chris Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 12 Apr 2001 15:26:39 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 07:13:04 EST Contents: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American (Aaron Kulkis) Re: The Windows guy. (Aaron Kulkis) Re: [OT] .sig (Aaron Kulkis) Re: [OT] .sig (Aaron Kulkis) Re: My long signature - Oops! (Terry Porter) Re: why open source software is better (Nick Condon) Re: Hijacking the IP stack (Ian Pulsford) Re: [OT] .sig (Aaron Kulkis) Re: [OT] .sig (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Aaron Kulkis) Re: M$ doing it again! (Aaron Kulkis) From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:22:48 -0500 Edward Rosten wrote: Steam engines are rather more maintenance-intensive than diesels, IIRC. There is a lot of plumbing inside a steam engine's boiler, all of which has to be kept leak free. These days, that's fairly simple. Just use stainless steel, or [steel electro-plated with copper] electro-plated with chrome. The larger the number of pieces, the higher the construction and maintenance costs. Moot point, since steam is gone except for nostalgia. And powerstations. Russian long-distance passenger service is still steam. -Ed -- | u98ejr | @ Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox | .ac.uk -- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer DNRC Minister of all I survey ICQ # 3056642 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] Subject: Re: The Windows guy. Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:25:15 -0500 Marten Kemp wrote: Donovan Rebbechi wrote: On 27 Feb 2001 09:09:33 GMT, Steve Mading wrote: Donovan Rebbechi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the argument I've just offered is pretty much the same as the one you objected to. I'm officially confused now. No, it's completely different. Read the other argument. The other argument said (essentially) that "DOS pipes can't do everything that UNIX pipes can do, therefore they are not pipes". This argument is obviously inadequate (unless you use "UNIX pipe" as a definition of pipe, which sort of defines the argument into triviality) -- Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ * elflord at panix dot com Actually, neither are *real* pipes. CMS PIPELINES is one of the three most powerful environments in the known universe, along with REXX and XEDIT. Oh, we're talking about PCs here? Then go on arguing. Sorry, couldn't help it. At least you'll have the opportunity to disparage mainframes instead of each other. [grins and dons Nomex underwear] *Real* operating systems can run other operating systems, including copies of themselves. *Real* machines can have a dozen processors, a dozen or so gigs of memory and several terabytes of data on a single box. Linux can do that. -- Marten Kemp VM/ESA systems admin -- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer DNRC Minister of all I survey ICQ # 3056642 -- From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("Steven Brangers")
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Aaron Ginn)
Re: I just can't help it! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (David Dorward)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" (Edward Rosten)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
MSG. to all about the loser kid trolls with nothing better to do... (J5)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Bas van der Meer)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (.)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Raymond Mroz")
From: "Steven Brangers" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:12:17 +0100
Most of the software which runs on Linux will run on Solaris as well.
The above probably applies to most commercial Unix versions, BTW
I woldn't call Solaris especially reliable, right perl programmers?
Tell me more: under what circomstances is Solaris unstable ?
Steven Brangers -- dba/unix sysadmin.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:19:12 -
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:54:58 +0200, Leonardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Steve Mading" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:9429n6$11rm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: You certainly mean "Linux replace Windows" - windows is already here,
it's
: entrenched. The new kid on the block is Linux, [...snip]
Not for servers. It was quite clear he was talking about servers.
For servers, Windows is more of a newcomer than Linux (although I
suppose Linux is actually younger, but it gains a lot of
"entrenchment" for free by being a UNIX clone.).
Total bullshit.
Windows is The nurmebr one in servers if you count all servers not just
...only if you count by single vendor.
However, if you count by OS family in aggregate Unix still
has a lead against windows. HELL, the IDC numbers only
credit Microsoft with one third of the market.
That's hardly a dominating lead by any metric.
those that are www related.
And it is growing it's market share all the time.
No, according to IDC the NT marketshare has been stagnant for
the last two years. It's Linux that is growing it's market
share all the time.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
--
From: Aaron Ginn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 18 Jan 2001 10:50:21 -0700
Craig Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Craig Kelley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
So, Erik, you've joined the denizens of Windows advocates that read
COLA then?
I've been reading COLA for a long time, because (until last week) a Linux
user as well. Now i'm back to using FreeBSD.
Thanks for not responding to anything I wrote, it just re-affirms it
all.
I'm glad FreeBSD works for you, but I find it strange that you loathe
Linux so much at the same time...
(Most Linux users have no problem with BSDen)
FYI, I intentionally did not crosspost this to COMNA for two reasons.
A) it's not flamebait
b) to see which Winvocates are trolling COLA.
So far I count Todd, Erik, Pete, and the androgynous poster currently
known as flatfish.
It amazes me that these guys are so obsessed with Linux that they
spend their time here. Oh well, whatever floats your boat.
--
Aaron J. GinnPhone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom SolutionsPager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: Aaron Ginn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: 18 Jan 2001 10:54:26 -0700
Craig Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 05:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Ed Allen)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Ed Allen)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (mitch)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is inevitable! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: linux jobs and skills. Why the sudden surge and increase? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windows SUX (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:59:05 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:39:45 +1300;
We already know MS don't like to fix bugs unless a major player is
screaming about it... why do they even have a testing procedure? Just to
make sure their product stands up long enough to look pretty and get
purchased?
Well, that's what you get from a monopoly; it is the "most efficient" at
extracting money from victims. Too bad its not a free market, which is
less efficient at fraud and more efficient at production and innovation.
I have not seen this mentioned in a while and it is *so* educational:
FOCUS:
But there are bugs an any version which people would really like to have
fixed.
Gates:
No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed.
http://www.tricknology.org/fun/pages/FOCUS%20Magazine%20Interview%20with%20Bill%20Gates%20Microsoft%20Code%20Has%20No%20Bugs.htm
So there you have it straight from "The Holy One" himself, if you
want a bug fixed in any released software you are a member of this
insignificant minority.
(For the Wintrolls: That means that customers who complain should be ignored or
chewed out immediately and yelled at, as Bill did in this fine example.)
I swear, the Mans' marketing GENIUS chokes me up !
--
"Whether you think their witnesses are credible or non-credible;
they've admitted monopoly power, they've admitted raising prices to hurt
consumers, they've admitted depriving consumers of choice...
-DAVID BOIES, US Department of Justice
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:59:05 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Charlie Ebert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OF course if you knew your head from your
ass concerning PC software you wouldn't
be posting this idiotic crap on a newgroup
with dozens of actual computer programmers
and systems administrators around to
blow your fucking ass out of the water
with this kind of jerk wad comment.
Thank you, for your civilty and restraint.
I laughed till tears came.
--
"Whether you think their witnesses are credible or non-credible;
they've admitted monopoly power, they've admitted raising prices to hurt
consumers, they've admitted depriving consumers of choice...
-DAVID BOIES, US Department of Justice
--
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:48:29 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
No-Spam wrote:
No Pete , this COLA, perhaps your thinking this is a linux TECH HELP
ng ?
The advocacy in this group appears to consist of the following:
1. Someone posts a topic criticising Linux. They may or may not use
"inflamatory" language.
2. Immediate response is to deride the poster. It doesn't matter if they
are legitimate problems or not.
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
I thought you were still waiting for Linux to get there ?
I still am. It's nearly there.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:00:57 GMT
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:24:52 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
The poor souls who have to run MSOffice in anger suffer a couple
of reboots a day typically.
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
saysLinux growth stagnating ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:34:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
True...but the Unix shell is even MORE ACCESSIBLE to novice users.
But not the Unix shell syntax. There's just no way.
[...]
What I like about the Unix shells that were specifically designed
Precisely my point.
with programming in mind ( Bourne-shell "sh" and Korn shell "ksh")
are:
All right! At last someone's gotten over their shyness. I'm willing,
no eager, to try to believe that the Unix shell is every bit as easy or
accessible for automating simple tasks in rudimentary macro-style
fashion to people who never need to, aren't able to, and *don't have any
talent to* develop complex software programs. Let's see what comes of
this list:
1: totally accessible to new users
Aye. Just start typing. But what does that have to do with syntax?
2: very comfortable learning curve -- programming is merely an
extension of the basic command line which every user uses.
Aye. But that's kind of the problem, you see. I'm not sure if its a
cop out to say that its possible that someone who is good at programming
couldn't possibly know how comfortable the curve is for people who would
make lousy programmers. Plus, do you really want the problem of VB
users who think they're programmers to be compounded even further by
making everyone who manages to work out a couple macros to think they're
a "real programmer"? Perhaps we need to consider returning to that old
"3rd generation/4th generation language" bit. That's really the
problem, you know, and why VB is such an abomination.
3: fully structured (no reliance upon goto's)
Is this really of value when you're *only* going to use something for
truly trivial things? Perhaps you all simply over-estimate (still,
despite my pleas) the kind of work that I figure can be done in BASIC.
4: full documentation is available online
Well, that's *purely* implementation, though we could chalk up "entirely
integrated", but that just goes back to point 1.
5: Numerous working shell scripts, available for casual inspection
are litered throughout any Unix system. In my junior
year at Purdue, one day I was quite surprised to discover
that the command "lpr" (on BSD systems) and many others
are actually shell scripts.
Certainly, this makes shell scripting easier to learn. Does it make
shell scripting syntax any easier to use without years of practice?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
=== Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ==
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:32:36 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:26no5.7317$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
If the Linux consensus is that DnD will not be supported under multiple
environments, then Linux has lost the war. It will never, as a desktop
OS,
surpass even the Macintosh, which does have a common API for DnD across
all
it's apps.
"...across all it's apps"? All its applications that are designed to run in
a single desktop environment correct? That is one point where your argument
fails. Unlike other OS's that you may be familiar with, Linux has numerious
independent user environments as do most unix OS's. Drag and drop will
NEVER be workable across ALL Linux applications, it just plain can never
happen. I will leave explaining why this is true as an exercise for you.
--
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:10:48 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8nqin2$fj5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article yr0n5
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552, Volume #27Sun, 9 Jul 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451719.328^-.06 (tholenbot)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux ("Wouter Verhelst")
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon? (abraxas)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? (DeAnn Iwan)
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? (DeAnn Iwan)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451719.328^-.06 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Mig)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 14:03:04 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
Calling me a "habitual liar" is a bit combatitive, is it not?
I wasn't calling you a habitual liar. I was saying that if you are one
of those that goes out of thier way to say false information to try to
prove how great Windows is (which, in some cases you seem to tread the
border on) then you would be a habitual liar. I was implying that you
are treading that line very carefully at the moment. Niether falling
off, nor finding the solid ground. An interesting tactic, and one that
can easily result in the person you are interacting with losing there
cool and blowing thier top. I am trying to avoid this at this point.
I'm saying "Linux lags behind Windows" because in a lot of areas, it does.
Now, I believe, the number areas Linux lags behind Windows is greater than
the number of areas Windows lags behind Windows, so that's how I justify my
statement.
If you had said this before, I probably wouldnt' be this deeply involved
in this discusion. What you have stated here is an opinion, based on
your observations. I truly believe that anyone is entitled to thier
opinions, no matter how much they differ from mine. Just don't try
stating an opinion as a "well known fact", that borders again on
lieing. Perhaps, for you this statement is completely true. But, for
me it is completely false (my opinion). Some people in here have real
difficulty accepting that opinions can be different amongst different
people, which leads to the usual breakdown we see. If this is your
opinion, great. Mine is the oposite. Who is right, neither of us. I'm
right for me, but completely wrong if I try to apply my opinion to your
situation. You are right for you, but completely wrong in my
situation. Stalemate? Probably, as opinions can lead to heated
debates, but no one is going to change their mind unless it can truly be
proven to them that there is a better way of thinking. I try to remain
open to other ideas, but I have found over the years that Windows just
doesn't work for me. It works for countless friends of mine, and that's
great. I help them out when they run into little difficulties here and
there, and I truly do not berate them for using Windows. I get Windows
running for them again, and leave them to their computing. Windows
works for them, Linux works for me, and nobody really tells the other
they are wrong. I would say over the next few years computing will open
up more and alternatives to what is now considered the "norm" will be
more easily accepted. I hope I am right about that, but only time will
tell.
I hope you will call me an idiot because then I can say "look, he resorts
to insults again".
This is kind of the attitude I'm sensing in a lot of your writing. You
tend to come across as someone that is coming to COLA just looking for a
fight. Still, I find the discussion more interesting if each side tries
to keep thier cool. This also comes across as another interesting
statement in the fact that you sometimes seem to think that all of the
people supporting Linux are one single entity. Charlie tells you
something and then you say that "Linux people" think whatever thing
Charlie has said. I personally feel Charlie is a bigger problem for
Linux than someone like Simon/Steve/whatever or Tim Palmer. He uses
lies to promote his beliefs, which is no better than what they do for
the Windows team.
However, you haven't, you have remained polite and an
interesting discussion is proceeding.
I would agree.
I have a combative attitute towards anyone who calls me a complete idi
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552
Linux-Advocacy Digest #552, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 03:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell) Re: Here is the solution (Christopher Browne) Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip) NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 17 May 2000 NYLUG Meeting: Lars Marowsky-Brée on SuSE and Highly Available Free Systems ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) news: Intel targets Linux as first OS on ITANIUM (bob@nospam) Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip) Re: What have you done? (Rob S. Wolfram) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy Subject: Re: Here is the solution Date: 17 May 2000 00:54:08 -0500 In article YhkU4.69718$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By 'application' I assume you mean any product that Microsoft themselves could write. That clearly includes OS components, for *any* definition of OS that includes any part of Windows. After all, Microsoft makes *all* of Windows. Yes, in particular any components that are extra cost, or talk over the network with a per client/connection fee should be considered a separate item open for competition. You should never be forced to buy something for the other end of your connection just because you have a bundled client for it, or to use a particular client because only the same vendor's software will accept your password. If you way Microsoft must make it possible to rewrite any part of Windows, then you are demanding they open source the fool thing, and thereafter not make changes (except additions). No, I am asking for well documented APIs and protocols. I don't think you can write a domain controller from the existing specs. But you can. You just can't replace *part* of Microsoft's domain controller software, and keep part. If you want to provide your own domain controllers, you must provide the client side as well- but Windows provides the hooks to do this. Are you sure (that you actually can, not that they claim you can)? I was fairly sure I had read about someone's attempt that failed, but can't recall the detail that was missing. And of course win2k changes the rules again. I don't think you can do client software that is capable of the 'one signon' trick on NT by transparently handling passwords for multiple services. You can. Look up "Security Support Interface", if I recall my acronym correctly. This is pretty complicated stuff to wade through. Is there an instance of anything that is working with it? That is some non-MS code interoperating with both a domain controller and something else? I don't think Microsoft should be able to pick and choose what products a competitor is allowed to write that will interoperate correctly. Why not? They seem *very* open-minded about it. They provides hooks for all sorts of things. Does, say, Linux provide a similar way to plug your own security authentication system, so that the standard security APIs all use it? Yes, the mechanism is there in the form of PAM (plugable authentication modules. Most, if not all Linux distributions are using it and you can authenticate against an NT domain, LDAP, etc. as well as normal password files and NIS. Solaris uses this approach too. If that's a problem then MS's withholding new APIs *isn't*- it takes some time for a new API to filter out and become widespread. It takes exactly as long as MS wants it too. Of course MS can just quit supporting the others any time they want, so it's fine for them. After they develop to the new api they can just push the customers there. Nobody else can consider that option. They can consider it; but like Microsoft they face the fact that it is real hard to get users to switch like that. There is reason why Microsoft bends over backwards for backwards compatibility, and it is that they are afraid their users will not come along on the upgrade ride if they don't. Backwards compatibility? You mean like allowing hardware vendors their choice of continuing to bundle a Win 3.x package or ship Win95? Or providing dial-up TCP for Win3.x that meshed with win-for-workgroups networking? That would have been bending over backwards. No, that would have been just reasonable. They didn't do that. That argument applies to other developers as well, of course. No other developer gets to pick the time that the pre-win2k versions stop getting any support. If history repeats, it will happen as soon as that apps division has a version of Office that requires the new API. Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: Here is the solution Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 06:05:27 GMT Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would say:
