Linux-Advocacy Digest #285, Volume #28 Mon, 7 Aug 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Jim)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("JS/PL")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ???? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Aaron-Kulkis-Style Conspiracy about Linux (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: 07 Aug 2000 16:37:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
> > > You and Netscape, and the DOJ just can't bring yourselves to
> > > admit that Microsoft has always gained market share by providing
> > > a superior product.
> >
> > And your blookage continues even further into absurdity.
>
>
> No one WANTS an alternative to Windows therefore there is no market
> for one. There are plenty of alternatives and has been for QUITE a
> while. As is proven by the fact that Linux can't even be GIVEN away.
>
> More choices are a mere 2 clicks away from the front page a very
> popular outpost on the internet:
> http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems
> /
>
> Unfortunately for you, almost ALL of personal computer users much
> prefer Microsoft Windows. No government strong-arm forcefulness or
> courtroom antics to remove that basic American freedom of choice will
> change the fact the consumer has resoundingly given Microsoft "the
> nod" of approval.
>
> You see...if there WAS a better product, it would have a buyer. I'm
> sorry to say - there's not a better product even on the horizon. Get
> used to it.
Why would anyone but an M$ Lemming want to get used to something that is
patently untrue?
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 7 Aug 2000 16:39:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Let's see ... at the age of 15, with the stock that Mr. Kulkis
>> purchased, he was able to unseat the Board of Directors of some major
>> corporation.
>Considering that ALL of the stockholders have the same interest
>that I do...namely .... RETURN ON INVESTMENT...it's not so hard.
Dr. Pangloss rides again.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:39:39 -0400
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Microsoft has no credibility at all, yet you swallow the hype hook, line
> and sinker. Microsoft now admits that NT 4, the OS that it insisted was
> a viable replacement for Unix, needed to be rebooted every five days on
> average.... This is a typical Microsoft tactic. Doesn't this Orwellian
> rewriting of history tip you off to the fact that maybe MS software
> isn't as great as Bill claims?
No credibility? Say's who? You?
Best PC Operating System of 2000
http://www.pcworld.com/top400/article/0,1361,16789+1+2,00.html
Windows2000 wins over the mobile workforce
http://www.informationweek.com/790/notebook.htm
A wealth of well-integrated tools and technologies make the Microsoft
platform a compelling choice for the enterprise...
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2551183,00.html
Giga Position
The Windows 2000 platform will be two to 10 times more reliable than any
prior 1.0 release of either the Windows desktop or server operating
system...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/news/external/gigasunbelt.asp
Microsoft's Windows 2000 Professional operating system-- slated to hit
stores Feb. 17 -- is a sharp-looking upgrade boasting several
well-thought-out improvements....
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/review/crg882.htm
Windows 2000 Server: Worth The Wait
By ALAN ZEICHICK
It's here, at long last--Windows 2000 Server. With this major upgrade to its
flagship operating system line...
http://www.internetwk.com/lead/lead012500.htm
Popular Mechanics Design & Engineering Awards. Over the years, the Awards
have become one of the most prestigious forms of recognition for achievement
in engineering...
http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/elect/9912TUDEAWARDSP.html
For any size of business, Windows 2000 has the right stuff, both as a
workstation and as a server...
http://www.cnet.com/software/0-1497797-7-1498886.html?tag=st.sw.3662.prl.149
7797-7-1498886
Windows 2000 Professional will be the best desktop operating system
Microsoft has ever released for the business user. Start planning now to
roll it out as soon as you can...
http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/nt/1129nt1.html
More accolades available upon request....
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 02:55:34 +1000
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mmj5u$4ct$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > How wonderfully informative of you to say so. Has anybody else ever
> > noticed a certain reticence in Unix people to be a little cheerfully
> > courteous in providing conversational understanding?
>
> Have you noticed that every time someone says you are wrong you resort
> to invective against this mythical "unix people"?
Hey, don't go stealing all the thunder :P. When *anyone* tells Max he's
wrong, he eventually resorts to invective against whoever they are, no
matter how much patience they might show.
[chomp]
> > >and refuse to learn or even read the previous posts in the thread?
> Both the
> > >sticky bit and the suid bit were explained in this thread. But I
> will
> > >explain them one more time. The sticky bit is used to indicate that
> a
> > >program should remain in swap, i.e. stuck in swap. Hence the name.
> This is
> > >done for performance. The suid bit is what you were describing.
> It causes
> > >the program to be executed with the permissions of the owner of the
> file.
> > >This does not necessarily have to be root although using suid with a
> file
> > >owner of root is probably the most common case. Both the suid bit
> and the
> > >sticky bit can be set with chmod.
> >
> > Thank you for yet another tiresome repetition of what I already know.
>
> Ok, so now you know what the bits do.
>
> > Now try to shake the cobwebs out of your skull and *listen*. Nothing
> > you have said has in any way *defined* either "bit",
>
> The bits are not definable in terms I would expect you to understand,
> really.
> Think of it as that there are two bites attached to each file, and each
> bit is
> a bit in one of those two bytes.
>
> > though they have
> > (yet again) _described_ them in a way I recognize and agree with. Now
> > WHAT ARE THEY?
>
> Bits. Ones or zeroes.
Don't feel bad. Earlier in this thread some of us spent about a week trying
to explain the basics of co-operative vs pre-emptive multitasking, and he
*still* didn't/doesn't get it.
> > Sure I can read the man page available at
> > http://www.softlab.ntua.gr/cgi-bin/man-cgi but so can you, and
> > supposedly you'd understand more of what might be cogent to my
> > confusion.
> >
> > I'm not trying to seem angry, I just get every bit as frustrated as
> you
> > do with the problems of communication. I'm anticipating someone
> posting
> > the representation of the bits in the UI, which I believe are part of
> > the permissions,
>
> I fail to see what the "are" in "are part of the permissions"
> refers to. Please rephrase.
>
> > but I'm certainly not going to go out on a limb and
> > post anything so technical myself with assholes like you guys around
> to
> > leap on any potential mistake I might make.
>
> Well, at least we would be assholes who know what we are talking about.
>
> You know, when someone says you are wrong, it's not a personal attack.
It is when you truly believe you're never wrong :P.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 17:40:24 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6 Aug 2000 17:32:07 -0500,
Leslie Mikesell, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 4 Aug 2000 18:38:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>
>>>Wrong. It would have been correct if you had said "linux doesnt support
>>>as many sound cards as windows 2000 does" or something along those lines,
>>>but it most certianly supports orders of magnitudes more hardware than
>>>any kind of windows does.
>>
>>Lets put it this way...
>>
>>It doesn't support as much MODERN/USER level hardware as well as any
>>modern flavor of Windows does.
>
>Isn't an ultrasparc modern?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How about an S/390? or Dual-Alphas?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Aaron-Kulkis-Style Conspiracy about Linux
Date: 7 Aug 2000 16:52:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> However, according to the conspiracy theory, that's how clever
>> the Communists are -- they pose as capitalists so they can subvert
>> capitalism by collectivizing software and driving proper capitalist
>> software companies out of business.
>took a BIG old puff of the crack pipe before writing that last
>remark, eh Loren?
However, if the Commies can fake withdrawal from Eastern Europe,
the breakup of the SU, the rise of capitalism in Russia, the Communist
Party being one party of several there, subverting US education while
ignoring European education, moving into the Panama Canal in capitalist
fashion, etc., then they can certainly do that.
In effect, according to this conspiracy theory, Red Hat is simply
the Hutchinson Whampoa of software.
>> However, according to the conspiracy theory, when the Communists
>> have their OSes running on enough servers, they can then make their strike.
>still guzzlin those crack fumes, eh?
Just like Hutchinson Whampoa?
>> Which disagrees with everything else written by the collapse of
>> Eastern European Communism. I've discovered an Irish Times 10-year special
>Who is a more relaible commentator about conditions on the moon:
>A) Some guy who idolizes Jules Verne, and is just absolutely sure
>that there are "little people" living on the moon... or
>B) Neil Armstrong.
>No more questions, yerhonor!
I don't see the analogy. A better analogy might include someone
who claims to be an ex-NASA employee who claims that he knows all about
how the Moon landings had been faked -- and who claims fear of
retaliation as the reason that he has not offered any really substantial
evidence.
>> And that series reported that Gorbachev got only 2 percent of the
>> votes for the Russian Duma -- and that the breakup of the SU was a way of
>> overthrowing Gorbachev by declaring that there was no more SU for him to
>> rule. And that Russia did not appreciate the Czech Republic, Hungary, and
>> Poland joining NATO.
>Yes, it all makes an entertaining SITCOM, doesn't it!
And Red Hat is a Communist front, right?
--
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] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 7 Aug 2000 16:55:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>MK wrote:
[Me on moving to another country:]
>> > I've half-thought of doing so if some right-wing fascists take over.
>> Why, if they built lots of "socialist roads" like Hitler actually did? Fascism
>> is too much of socialism for you to leave.
>Petrich doesn't like roads, because those evil CARS drive on them.
Cry me a river.
--
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] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 7 Aug 2000 17:00:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ever notice how many American hippy-leftist go absolutely gaga over
>the VW beetle...i.e. one and *only* HITLER-NAZI-MOBILE!
So roads and easily affordable cars are bad because the Nazis were
big on building them?
I also note tht the Nazis' excellent highways inspired one of
their conquerors, a certain Dwight David Eisenhower, to push for
imitations of them.
--
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] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 17:03:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 7 Aug 2000 03:43:41 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[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.
>
>Yes. Lie-nux is equal to DOS.
I think you missed the logic (or lack thereof). To use another analogy:
(1) These marbles are green.
(2) Grass is green.
(3) Trees are green.
(C) Therefore, these marbles are made of trees and grass. :-)
This type of logic clearly doesn't work.
In a similar vein, the logic copied above doesn't work, either.
DOS has a number of capabilities, but multitasking is not one of them.
Therefore, DOS and Linux are not equivalent. (DOS is also lacking
in a lot of other stuff, but multitasking is arguably the most
obvious.)
This doesn't mean that DOS is better than Linux, it just means
that they are quite different. (I would contend that Linux is
better than DOS, but that's merely my opinion, backed up by a
few issues such as memory usage and ease of development and
deployment.)
>
>>
>>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.
>
>Windos can run Lienux thru VMWARE.
I wouldn't doubt it, actually, since VmWare simulates a PC.
Why anyone would want to do so is an interesting question, admittedly. :-)
>
>>
>>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.
>
>No Windo's is better than DOS.
I have to agree with you on that one. Windows is superior to DOS.
It's also more complicated, graphically aware (anyone else remember
Borland's BCI? :-) ), and doesn't have some of the other issues
that used to bedevil DOS, mostly the issue of conventional memory
versus extended/expanded, which was worked around in a number of ways.
With Win32, it ceases to be much of a worry at all; one just allocates
memory in a flat 32-bit address space -- a major convenience.
Linux also has a 32-bit flat address space -- in fact, if I'm not
totally mistaken, on 64-bit machines such as DEC Alpha, it has
a 64-bit flat address space. (Obviously, this would be hard
if not impossible to physically implement, but it can lead to
some interesting designs down the road; for instance, a database
vendor could reserve 4 gigs of address space for itself and use
32-bit pointers internally without worry.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
