Linux-Advocacy Digest #226, Volume #28 Fri, 4 Aug 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Vacuum, void, null... .NET (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
LINUX, OF COURSE!! (Cihl)
Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Perry Pip)
Re: Aaron-Kulkis-Style Conspiracy about Linux (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:52:22 +0200
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apple's QuickTime has a particuarly stupid UI. It features a "draw"
Nitpick: it's the QT Movie Player, not QuickTime. QT has no UI, just an
API.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Vacuum, void, null... .NET
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:52:20 +0200
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's going on here? I couldn't find one single idea that could
> actually be implemented in a software product in that entire white
> paper. Instead of providing a list of features, Microsoft provides a
> list of amorphous "benefits" like this one:
>
> Web sites become flexible services that can interact, and exchange
> and leverage each other's data. [Ibid]
A little rephrasing, and they could get a patent on it.
Note the lack of Emoticons, I'm afraid they could.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 10:05:52 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tim Palmer wrote:
> > You run UNIX text commands in them, just like you runs DOS command's in
a DOS > box. They're the same thing.
>
> One more time DOS != Unix
>
> They are nowhere near the same thing. Wouldn't you be bothered if
> someone refered to your precious Windows as Linux?
I think you are on to something there! Let's restate and expand on Tim's
arguments in this thread and see where it leads.
Windows 9x provides a Dos in a window solution that is called a Dos box.
Windows NT provide a Dos in a windows solution that is a more complex since
it is required to emulate more of Dos environment.
OS/2 provides a Dos in a window solution which is also superior in
technology to the Windows 9x Dos box.
Dos is inferior to Windows 95, Windows NT, and OS/2 since they can run
emulations of it in their windows.
Linux provides a Dos in a window solution through dosemu. In spite of its
name dosemu is not a dos emulator it is a PC emulator that can run real dos.
It can operate from unix's command line as well as in a window. It can also
run any other real mode operating system for dos and programs that boot
directly and don't use an operating system. This solution is more advanced
than the others so far mentioned.
Linux also has another Dos in a windows solution through VMware.
Dos is undesireable because it runs with a command line interface.
unix/Linuxis undesireable because it can run with a command line interface.
unix/Linux is equal to Dos.
unix/Linux provides a unix/Linux in a window solution through xterms. That
would mean the Linux is inferior to Linux.
Linux also provides a Windows in a window solution through wine.
Linux also provides a just about anything that can run on a PC (including
Linux) in a window solution through VMware. Meaning that just about
anything that can run on a PC (including Linux) is inferior to Linux.
Conslusions of these expansions of Tim's position:
Windows can be viewed as an application that runs under Linux.
Windows is so bad that it is inferior to the undesireable Linux which is
inferior to even itself and is the equivlent of Dos.
Windows is inferior to Dos.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 17:19:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andres Soolo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 4 Aug 2000 00:07:24 GMT
<8md1fs$o1n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Say I want to ask you what do you mean by a post like this. Why should
>>>I use MSOffice for this job over vi?
>> The rite tool for this would be WordPad. VI is to hard to use.
>*Why* is WordPad more right than vi?
>By the way, I *am* currently using vi and it isn't hard.
Far be it for me to actually defend an idea of Tim "I kan't speel
werth sheet" Palmer :-), but it's clear that WordPad, in the grand
tradition of "we are Microsoft and we'll MAKE you use it our way" :-)
is in fact easier to use, unless one wants to do something fancy
like put a non-visual line count in front of each line (although
WordPad might have a visual line number mode somewhere, I can't
say I know where it is; vi's is ":set nu") with a Perl script.
(Easy!
1G!Gperl -e '$n=0;while(<STDIN>) { $n++; print $n," ",$_; }'
if you happen to know perl. If that's too hard to remember
offhand (I'm very good at remembering dumb details; don't ask
me why), put the following in a shell script called '~/bin/lno' and
run that:
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
$n=0;while(<STDIN>) { $n++; print $n," ",$_; }
and then issue
1G!Glno
to vi. Or one can write a C, C++, assembly, python, Tcl,
Java, or whatever floats your boat and use that.
Try that with Wordpad. You might say VI does a bang-up job...)
One might liken WordPad to a fancy luxury car with all of the
modern conveniences -- font control, edit-picture-in-picture,
mousey cut/copy/paste, WYSISWYIEISUAWC ("...if everything is
set up and working correctly"), and of course it's Windows; nobody
ever got fired for recommending Windows. It can even tow a small
boat. (Word would be a limousine; looks almost the same as
WordPad. Visual C++ is a small pickup truck.)
VI, by contrast, would be the big ugly off-road tow truck whose body
color is reminiscent of bits of food left from the Hoover Administration,
doesn't have power steering, brakes, or anything more comfortable
than old foam-rubber bench seats, and has to be filled up from
a diesel station 10 miles from the worksite. (Emacs would be a
semi-tractor-trailer off-road-rig with more antennae than the
CIA building [*]. :-) ) And GNU G++ is a rather large engine
hooked up to a manufacturing plant.
(OK, Ghosty, now you're getting silly here; stop it. :-) )
Now, both are all right for driving on limited-access superhighways;
the car will be more comfortable, of course. But taking a
mere car off road is an invitation to trouble, especially where
there are lots of rocks.
And you can forget about taking that yacht to your inland lodge
hideaway. :-)
[snip]
>>>> UNIX just fales to work. The user has too due al the work.
>>>Can you give us an example?
>> You half to type "make kernalconfig".
>The user?
>In what circumstances?
[root@lexi linux]# make kernalconfig
make: *** No rule to make target `kernalconfig'. Stop.
[root@lexi linux]#
Smirk.
>
>--
>Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Women waste men's lives and think they have
>indemnified them by a few gracious words.
> -- Balzac
[*] I am given to understand that the Australians have absolutely
huge multitrailer truck rigs ("trains"?) for driving in
the Outback, where filling stations are few and far between.
These might be an even better analogue, although I do not
remember whether the roads are paved or not. (Probably not,
admittedly, although I've never been there.)
One is also tempted to think of a certain Mel Gibson movie series... :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "The blower man, the blower!"
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 12:24:42 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> > > You run UNIX text commands in them, just like you runs DOS command's in
> a DOS > box. They're the same thing.
> >
> > One more time DOS != Unix
> >
> > They are nowhere near the same thing. Wouldn't you be bothered if
> > someone refered to your precious Windows as Linux?
> Conslusions of these expansions of Tim's position:
>
> Windows can be viewed as an application that runs under Linux.
>
> Windows is so bad that it is inferior to the undesireable Linux which is
> inferior to even itself and is the equivlent of Dos.
>
> Windows is inferior to Dos.
Whoah! *BRAIN OVERLOAD*
I liked that.
However, the real point I was trying to make is that just because a DOS
box and an xterm both have a commandline interface, they are not the
same.
Saying that DOS is the same as a Unix shell would be the same as saying
that Windows is the same as Linux. Why?
You can pop up a DOS box on Windows, you can pop up an xterm on Linux.
According to Tim's view, these are exactly the same because they have a
CLI interface available.
Would it not be correct then (in this same thinking) to say that Windows
is exactly the same as Linux? I mean, if Linux has X up (and we all
know that isn't necissary, but indulge for the moment) and a GUI
running, and Windows has a GUI interface, using Tim's logic, they would
be exactly the same thing. Therefore, Linux=Windows *SHUDDER*!
In short, posting factually incorrect information, no matter how much
you may like it, isn't a good way to win an argument, or a good way to
represent yourself. Realizing that a Unix shell is not equal to a DOS
prompt is just as important as realizing that Linux is not Windows. At
least, it is in my opinion.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: LINUX, OF COURSE!!
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 17:31:08 GMT
Hey!! Finally a troll! [rubbing hands]
But, what kind of troll is this, anyway. It isn't even crossposted!
Here, let me fix that for you.
.
.
.
Ok, let's go.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have heard a lot of things about Linux.
Yeah, me too. Better still, i've even seen it. And i'm using it to
send this post right now. Linux is so cool, isn't it. I bet you
couldn't even do that in Windows. (oops, i said Windows, with a
capital even). I mean, winblows sucks.
> I'm running happily W2K and now I'd like to know a valid
> reason for switching from Windows 2000 to Linux? Why?
> What advantage does the person gain running Linux?
> Can some of you qeniuses tell me ???
Because Linux ROCKS! It ROCKS, i tell you! Take my word for it! You
get more stability! More configurability! More speed! Better apps!
More choice! More exclamation marks!
> Because Linux is a stable ?? Yes, I believe that, but so is W2K.
No no no no no!!! winblows 2-grand sucks loads of crap through a very
thin straw when it comes to [fill in
here]^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSTABILITY!
> It costs less, yes it's true. But I'm only buying W2K once, and am all
> set for at least 5 years if not more.
> Besided, time is money. I will lose more money by screwing around
> with a new system that I don't even know and that may not even support
> the hardware that Windwows does.
No hardware support? Hah! Did someone ever tell you that Mightgosoft
hardly supports any hardware AT ALL!? You ALWAYS need vendor CD's.
YUCK! Install OS. Reboot. Detect hardware. Reboot. Put in CD 1.
Reboot. CD 2. Reboot. etc. etc. etc.
In Linux, you can ALWAYS pick your video card on install from a
HUMONGOUS list. You network card is ALWAYS supported. Sound cards
ALWAYS work. I ALWAYS write 'ALWAYS' with capital letters!
> What software am I going to run on it ??? All the world class software
> is written for Windows. Hardly anything is ported to Linux.
Word class?! You mean Mightgosoft Orifice?! Dude! Do you ever write
anything that's more than one page? Try inserting a picture and see
what happens to the rest of your text!
Who needs Orifice when you can have VIM^H^H^HStar Office!
> I'm a Windows developer, why should I spend 2 years of my life learning
> how to program a new ssytem, that may eventually die anyway ???
^^^^^^
AHA! A spelling error! You're such a fscking MORON! You can't even
spell 'sysetm'!
> I can create a great application using Visual Basic or Visual C++ in a
> matter of few days. I'm not sure if that's posible in Linux. I haven't
> heard about any Visual development envir. for Linux ...
Hey! If you HAVE to use a visual environment, then you're NOT a good
programmer, okay? Anyway, there are several nice IDE's for making
apps. You have KDevelop, for instance. And have you tried JBuilder
3.5? WAY COOL!! Java runs TWICE as fast on Linux than it does on
winblows!
> The only way they (companies) can defeat Microsoft is with the help of
> mom - Government. That's the only way they can do it, they can't
> succeed on the merit alone. Sun Microsystems goes even so far as to get
> involved European Union. Now that's real abuse of government power.
> Here is the clear indication who is THE LOSER.
Yep! Mightgosoft! Hehehe! Let everybody sue, sue and sue again!
Governments unite! That way, Mightgosoft will at least have done
SOMETHING right!
> I can't wait to see your replies
Well, that depends on how fast my ISP passes those news postings.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Ha! I bet you're really that mr. A. Coward from Slashdot, aren't you!
Give me your REAL e-mail address so i can mailbomb you properly,
instead of having to look for you first!
(Let's see, a flame, a threat, lots of capitals, a crosspost and
exclamation marks. Now THIS is a good troll!)
--
You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
Do you wish to restart your computer now?
[YES] [NO]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!!
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 12:58:03 -0500
Cihl wrote:
> (Let's see, a flame, a threat, lots of capitals, a crosspost and
> exclamation marks. Now THIS is a good troll!)
To quote a certain waiter in Ferris Bueller's Day Off:
"I weep for the future."
To quote Rodney King:
"Can't we all just get along."
To quote Beavis:
"Yeah, yeah, it's like, everytime I pick my nose, it's full again in a
few minutes."
To quote myself:
"Everybody's a fricken' moron. The trick is foolin' enough people into
thinking you know anything at all."
To quote Tim Palmer:
"Commie Lie-nux sux. Et iz stoopud, n u adit cnfig fials al the dayz."
To quote my pants after I ate too much:
"RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRip"
To quote the Bible:
"Jesus wept."
To quote my brain after looking at all these quotes:
"I started with a point in mind, then realized I was simply feeding the
trolls. It's always best to use stupidity instead of intelligence. If
the opposite were true, they would have to shut down usenet from a lack
of interest."
Sorry to have wasted your time. I guess I'm feeling spooky.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: 4 Aug 2000 13:11:19 -0500
In article <FgCi5.20344$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 4. Linux may indeed be another UNIX, but what's wrong with that? It
>actually takes
>> knowledge and intelligence to run UNIX and its variants, unlike
>Windows, where the
>> user is coddled into a sense of security with its ease of
>installation and purported
>> compatibility.
>
>All of which tells us that, since Unix was here first, that it lacked
>something that made it viable in the home market.
Price. Unix was about $1,000 a box back then, sometimes with
an extra charge for tcp, X, and a compiler. It wasn't in
tune with the single-user box concept. I think windows came
in at under $100.
>Could that be the
>comparative ease with which even non-technical users can install it?
Doesn't matter on a pre-installed box, or where the canned
install procedure is matched to the hardware.
>Perhaps. Could it be that until the last couple of years, it simply
>demanded too much of the hardware? Perhaps.
Partly true - compared to Win3.1 or lower it needed better hardware
if you wanted to run X. From Win95 on they are about the same.
>Maybe it was just
>pathetic marketing. Whatever the cause, neither Apple nor Unix could
>make the grade. MS, for all its faults, _did_ make the grade.
Yes, AT&T couldn't market their way out of a paper bag back then.
But, that is all ancient history. MS got the volume market by
delivering a low quality product cheaper than anyone else.
But that's all over now...
>No, but I did end up with one distro - RedHat 5, I think - that
>claimed to have IDE/ATAPI support built into the shipping kernel...
>but wouldn't talk to my CD until I recompiled the fool thing. Having
>succeeded in getting it installed, I configured XFree86, which claimed
>to support my video card of the time - a Mach 64 card.
Redhat 5 is ancient history too. I just did a backup of
a 6.2 based system from one machine (mylex raid controller,
trident vga) to another (adaptec scsi, ATI vga) and it
booted up, told me about the devices that were gone and
ask if I wanted to deactivate then, then told me about the
new hardware, including the manufacturer of the hard drives
and CD, and asked if I wanted to configure them, did the
X configuration test, and then continued to boot normally.
The last time I tried something like that in windows it
took another day to get the drivers working again.
>Fine, no problem... I wanted to run the fool thing as a networking
>device anyway, so let's set that up. Yes, I can ping it across the
>LAN, good. Add a new user, telnet in and... and it refused to admit
>that the user existed. Well, not quite; you could log in as that user
>locally, but not across the network. Six hours later, much of it
>spent online in various Linux discussion forums, offered no solution.
/var/log/message would have told you why.
>> support, or anthing else of that sort. It's unnecessary. My Mach64
>cards, Trident
>> 9440, 9480, 3DImage975, and Mach128 cards have all worked right out
>of the box, with
>> a little tweaking and some shared knowledge.
>
>Why can't they just work out of the box, period?
Most do, now.
>To a point. An OS is _not_ something I or many want to waste _any_
>time farting around with; it's sole purpose is to let us do our _real_
>work, which is not, generally speaking, system administration.
Hmmm, and you are suggesting that you don't have to waste time
with windows? Either you have been extremely lucky or you
haven't moved many parts from the pre-install configurations.
>Oh? Funny; I don't see how you conclude that. Yes, Windows makes it
>easier to get up and running and doing work, in the majority of cases,
>but what's that got to do with whether you can learn about the
>machine? Why does simply running Linux magically translate into
>having completed a course in digital circuit design, semiconducter
>theory, or the design and implementation of bus negotiation
>mechanisms? Or is learning Linux equivalent to a course in data
>encoding and error recovery techniques used by hard drives, perhaps?
>No, don't think so.
Linux has inherited the unix toolset, so if you want to build
multi-step operations out of the same commands you would
use separately it is easy to do so. It also includes several
programming languages if you want to learn program development.
It doesn't require these if you prefer to stay in a GUI
but it allows them if you are interested.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:16:06 +0200
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was the Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:58:38 +0200...
> ...and Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A modern scheduler is sufficently self-tuning to work well on servers or
> > > desktops without modification. When my FreeBSD machine runs its nightly
> > > 2 am maintenance scripts, I can only tell if I'm physically present to
> > > hear the disk drive's noises.
> >
> > Well then, Linux doesn't seem to have a modern scheduler. The solitair
> > app that comes with KDE in the Suse distro has a bug in one of the
> > games. When it's triggered, the game hangs in a loop and everything
> > slows to a crawl.
>
> Is the program just generating 100% CPU load or does it also access
> files? Does its memory footprint grow in the process?
>
> If the program's sucking up core, your system might be trashing. If it
> accesses the drives, it might be the same problem as on my system,
> where high load is less of a problem than lots of disk access because
> my hard drive runs in some crappy PIO mode where the kernel needs to
> spend lots of CPU whenever accessing it.
>
> There's a kernel patch to get DMA going with this drive. I've finally
> got to bite the bullet and install it.
What happens is this: as soon as you trigger the bug, the machine
becomes unresponsive, X takes >70% of the CPU (that would be the
slowdown), while the app (kpat) takes around 10% CPU and sucks up all
memory. Probably as a parasite kblankscrn.kss also grabs a couple of
Megs. In the end (if you don't kill kpat within 2 minutes), when all
swap-space is used up, the machine locks dead, just thrashing. The first
time I tried this, it reboted itself after a couple of minutes, but not
the other 2 times (after > half hour), CTRL-ALT-DEL didn't work, had to
power down, damaging the filesystem.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:16:18 GMT
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000 10:05:52 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>> > You run UNIX text commands in them, just like you runs DOS command's in
>a DOS > box. They're the same thing.
>>
>> One more time DOS != Unix
>>
>> They are nowhere near the same thing. Wouldn't you be bothered if
>> someone refered to your precious Windows as Linux?
>
>
>I think you are on to something there! Let's restate and expand on Tim's
>arguments in this thread and see where it leads.
>
>Windows 9x provides a Dos in a window solution that is called a Dos box.
>
>Windows NT provide a Dos in a windows solution that is a more complex since
>it is required to emulate more of Dos environment.
>
>OS/2 provides a Dos in a window solution which is also superior in
>technology to the Windows 9x Dos box.
>
>Dos is inferior to Windows 95, Windows NT, and OS/2 since they can run
>emulations of it in their windows.
>
>Linux provides a Dos in a window solution through dosemu. In spite of its
>name dosemu is not a dos emulator it is a PC emulator that can run real dos.
>It can operate from unix's command line as well as in a window. It can also
>run any other real mode operating system for dos and programs that boot
>directly and don't use an operating system. This solution is more advanced
>than the others so far mentioned.
>
>Linux also has another Dos in a windows solution through VMware.
>
>Dos is undesireable because it runs with a command line interface.
>
>unix/Linuxis undesireable because it can run with a command line interface.
>
>unix/Linux is equal to Dos.
>
>unix/Linux provides a unix/Linux in a window solution through xterms. That
>would mean the Linux is inferior to Linux.
>
>Linux also provides a Windows in a window solution through wine.
>
>Linux also provides a just about anything that can run on a PC (including
>Linux) in a window solution through VMware. Meaning that just about
>anything that can run on a PC (including Linux) is inferior to Linux.
>
>
>Conslusions of these expansions of Tim's position:
>
>Windows can be viewed as an application that runs under Linux.
>
>Windows is so bad that it is inferior to the undesireable Linux which is
>inferior to even itself and is the equivlent of Dos.
>
>Windows is inferior to Dos.
>
>
You left a couple of things:
Linux/Unix, Dos, and even Windows are superior to spell checkers.
Tem Paulmere is inferior to a spell checker=<)
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron-Kulkis-Style Conspiracy about Linux
Date: 4 Aug 2000 18:27:14 GMT
To:
General Loren Petrich
Supreme Commander
Red Star Train Mounted Mac Forces
Petrich you dirty Ratfinkovitch! You've given away our
top secret plan for World Domination! Your borscht ration
is hereby cut in half for a month!
Fortunately Amerikanskis are too stupid to believe what
we're doing. So we will triumph anyway! As long as they
don't discover our ultimate weapon: Nuclear Penguins!
Long Live The Revolution!
Mark S. Bilkovsky, Fearless Leader
World Communism
Advance Base
Under Aaron Kulkis' Bed
P.S. -- Get Moose and Sqvirrel dammit!!!
What do you think we're not paying you for!
In article <8merl6$sp2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mr. Kulkis's favorite Communist conspiracy theories make me wonder
>if Linux is also the result of a Communist conspiracy. Here goes:
>
>* Open source is a Communist approach toward software development, because
>it works by treating software as collective rather than private property
>with access and use fees. In fact, some elements of the open-source
>movement advocate collectivization of *all* software; Richard Stallman
>regards "software hoarders" as not much different from Kulaks.
>
>One problem with open-source development is how to finance it, since it
>cannot be financed in normal capitalist fashion. However, Communist agents
>of influence could be doing the financing. And why that? Remember that
>"the capitalists would sell the rope that the Communists would use to hang
>them." By underselling private software, the Communists hope to put the
>private-software industry out of business, thus reducing resistance to
>their next advances.
>
>* Linus Torvalds is a key figure in Linux. And he comes from Finland,
>which is right next door to Russia. This means that Communist agents could
>have had an easy time recruiting a figurehead for their attempts to
>subvert the software industry. And they evidently made a *very* good
>choice.
>
>* Sometimes, it must be said, the Communists give themselves away.
>Consider Linux distributor Red Hat. Why a _red_ hat? Could they be
>inadvertently giving away that they are a Communist front?
>
>* Linux has made impressive advances in the server market. Success in the
>server market has shown the depth of the Communists' strategic thinking,
>because these are critical parts of computer networks, and controlling
>these will only help the Communists make further advances.
>
> This may seem totally absurd, but this can't be much more absurd
>than Mr. Kulkis's conspiracy theories.
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 4 Aug 2000 18:31:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8marb3$2g98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks for bringing this up. If Compaq can indeed pull this off (I
>> have my doubts from a company who *still* sticks to "bios on the
>> drive" bullshit) they will actually become competative in the Big
>> Unix Market (TM).
>
> Well, the part that is doing that is the part that used to be DEC, and
> they could produce quite reasonable hardware. Anyone using a Unix
> should have a soft spot for DEC, for where would we be without the PDPs?
>
I understand that there is (thankfully) still something of a barrier between
compaq and what was once DEC, but I dont have high hopes of it staying that
way.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 4 Aug 2000 18:38:16 GMT
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 12:24:42 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In short, posting factually incorrect information, no matter how much
>you may like it, isn't a good way to win an argument, or a good way to
>represent yourself.
I didn't think his purpose was to win -- but to provide comic relief, as
well as a resident clown/whipping boy. He reminds me of that "Gerald Holmes"
guy who has the Microsoft advocacy website.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
