Linux-Advocacy Digest #279, Volume #29 Sat, 23 Sep 00 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (lyttlec)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Woofbert)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Jerry L Kreps)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Charles Kooy)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Charles Kooy)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (lyttlec)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (dc)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (David M.
Butler)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (FM)
Re: GPL & freedom (Tim Tyler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:12:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Simon Cooke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:51:16 -0700
<8q0q4b$55g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Simon Cooke
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:13:10 -0700
>> <8pue2f$9gf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
>> >My point is that if we're going to get all precise about it, then let's
>have
>> >it be the exact number of years since 0AD (the only way I can describe
>that
>> >date); which means we should probably celebrate on the 3rd of March this
>> >year.
>> >
>> >Oops. Too late :)
>>
>> Don't forget the short month of September 1752. :-)
>> This probably moves your target date to late February...
>>
>> (If you're running Linux, try 'cal 1752'. Believe it or not, it knows.)
>
>Actually, I took that into account with the 3rd of march; 12 days were
>'lost', pushing the actual date from 15th March 2000 to 3rd of March 2000 :)
Ah, OK. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 730,473 days on the calendar, 730,473 days,
You wait 24 hours and go back to bed,
730,472 days on the calendar, ...
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:27:51 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, lyttlec
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:34:03 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Peter Ammon wrote:
> >>
> >> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >> >
> >> > You mean Jeff Goldblume? The same Jeff Goldblume that has appeared in
> >> > several Apple Computer television commercials? The one that's on the
> >> > Apple payroll? Do you know that Apple pays big bucks in hollywood to
> >> > get it's computers in "cool" movies like Independence Day?
> >>
> >> I don't believe you. Can you back this up?
> >>
> >> -Peter
> >Get the "Killer Tomato" series movies. you gotta watch them all.
>
> Including the cartoon series? :-)
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- catchy tune, though
Haven't seen the cartoons on tape. Got any or know where I can get them?
Do they have any puns on the order of "Who's that ringing in the Seine?"
The product placement jokes were all in the full length movies.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:23:32 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine writes:
> References trimmed back a bit.
> I wrote
>> Marty writes:
>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>>>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>>> I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
>> You didn't explain where the attribution previous to it came from, Marty.
> [rest snipped]
>
> Can we please argue about something a little *less* important here? :-) :-)
I'm sure you can. The question is, why would you want to?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:48:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Paul 'Z' Ewande©
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:27:03 +0200
<8q5sn6$24jo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" wrote:
>> >
>> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>> > 8q0n8r$ipc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>> >
>> > > And I supose that all the MS OS users are current on patchs??? I doubt
>> > > that.
>> >
>> > Huh, that's exactly is point. Windows users are expected to be behind
>> > security patches, what's funny is that the supposedly smarter Un*x
>admins
>> > aren't all current neither. :)
>>
>> prove it.
>
>How could they be bitten by old exploits when patches exist for those ? Have
>you been following the thread ?
Easy. Lazy administration.
Not everyone installs a brand new patch the minute it's out, you know.
Ideally, mind you, people would.
>
>Paul 'Z' Ewande
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:51:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:51:12 GMT
<APSw5.5109$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
>
>The Penguinistas have their head burried so far in the sand they can't
>even realize their own beloved OS' weakness.
The same thing could be said of a proper subset of users of that
other OS. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random proper subset here
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:55:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "Bob" == Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, my intellectual argument against using Macs is that they
> > are largely unsupported, proprietary oddities far from the
> > mainstream of the real computer world. Apple product users are
> > the hermits of the 21st Century.
>
> That's not an argument, intellectual or otherwise. That's an
> opinion.
And despite today's touchy-feely feel-good notions about the inherent
goodness, value, and truth of all opinions, that one is not even very
good.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, InfernoSoft Datadroid
http://www.infernosoft.com/company/techsupport.html
"Inside every Microsoft application, there are
several simple programs trying to get out."
------------------------------
From: Jerry L Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:02:35 -0500
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, lyttlec wrote:
>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:44:05 +0100, Garry Knight
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>You think that's bad, in my tech school days we programmed the computer
>with "plug boards". Put one end of the blue wire into the green hole and
>the other into the red hole type of thing. We thought it was great when
>we got a computer with tubes instead of relays.
I remember that! As a student at the Barnes School of Business, in Denver, I
learned to wire the IBM 402 Tabulator that way. The 402 weighed several
thousand pounds, which is where the term "heavy iron" came from.
>
>We also walked two miles to school every day bare foot in the snow.
I never walked. I always grabbed a hold of the bumper of a car going my way
and slid to school. Lot's of fun!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Kooy)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:08:56 +0100
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/21/2000 at 05:52 PM,
> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The point is that Apple is widely associated with a lifestyle and
> > mindset. Packard Bell is not.
>
> Just for grins and giggles, I had one of our high school computer teachers
> ask 11th graders what they though of when they heard the word, "Apple".
> Only 6 of 87 said computers.
Just for grins and gigles, did you ask the same group what they thought
of when the heard the word 'Warp'? Let me guess - a 100% turnout for
OS/2? Not.
ck
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Kooy)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:08:58 +0100
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "Bob" == Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, my intellectual argument against using Macs is that they are largely
> > unsupported, proprietary oddities far from the mainstream of the real
> > computer world. Apple product users are the hermits of the 21st Century.
>
> That's not an argument, intellectual or otherwise. That's an opinion.
>
And a particularly ironic one considering the author of the opinion is a
user of OS/2, which is rapidly removing itself from the mainstream
thanks to the truly astounding inability of IBM to sell the thing
properly, despite its obvious technical merits. Apple, on the other
hand, is introducing a new OS based on Unix, which I think even the most
vocal and biased wintellistas would find hard to classify as an
unsupported, proprietary oddity.
ck
ck
------------------------------
From: dc <[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: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:24:18 -0500
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:18:39 -0500, Bryant Brandon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>@> He's not asking you to educate hime--he's asking you to back up your
>@>claims. Take a look back at
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
>@>said, "Your lack of knowledge is apalling." You seem to be implying
>@>that he didn't know something.
>@
>@Yes - that would be him admitting he doesn't know a thing about
>@Win2k/NT.
>@
>@>In that case, it is your responsibility
>@>at the very least to narrow down the search criteria.
>@
>@To Win2k/NT?
>@
>@>Telling him to go
>@>to www.miscosoft.com doesn't do it, since that encompases much more than
>@>he asked for.
>@
>@To learn about Win2k/NT? What better way than to go there? MS has a
>@nice page on the subject that tells all about it. I'm dead certain he
>@can find it if he looks.
>
> Doubtful. The MS site is very large, poorly organized, and fucking
>slow over a modem. Not to mention that every single HTML tag on every
>page is malformed. Why should he have to plow through a site like that,
>when you could probably rattle off the url off the top of your head?
Because he's the one that is responsible for his own life and destiny,
not me. It isn't up to me to train him. I think Chad Meyer's (??)
response to your question most recently was well thought out - please
see it, too, for another perspective.
>@> On the other hand, it is very interesting that you continue to refuse
>@>to provide proof that you know the difference.
>@
>@I guess Microsoft knowledgebase articles on subjects that baffle him,
>@corrections to several people on how WOW/NTVDM/Win32, DHCP, NAT, and a
>@host of other subjects really function, all having to do with
>@Microsoft technologies, don't count?
>
> You haven't posted them (or a url) in this thread. [by "this thread"
>I mean the chain of articles I can get from the Reference header] You
>have simply stated over and over, "Why should I?" Not very convincing.
Because this newsgroup consists of more than this thread, your reply
is immaterial.
>@>You've probably written
>@>more, and spent more time, refusing to provide proof, than you would
>@>have providing the proof. I find it somewhat humorous. Also a pretty
>@>good indication that either you don't know, or are afraid that the
>@>differences aren't good enough.
>@
>@Oh, yes, please, just skip over all of the proof I've provided....
>@CLund (and you) only needs to read in this forum for proof.
>
> Why should he have to dig through every article you have posted to
>find the occasional gem that says more than, "Nope, I was right, you're
>wrong"? He asked nicely enough for you to post it to this thread, and
>if it is so obvious it should not be a difficult task.
I see no reason to jump whenever someone asks for an education. As
Chad said, this isn't comp.sys.mac.Get.A.Clue.
>Certainly no
>more difficult than sayong over and over that you already did.
> But you haven't, and probably won't. So a casual observer will
>probably be more inclined to believe his claim that you cannot list the
>differences than your claim that you did and he was too dumb to
>understand.
> Good luck on proving him wrong. You'll apparently need it.
I think those who've read this forum know the truth on the matter -
I'm very familiar with NT/W2k, and CLund isn't. We've both proven it
time and time again. The fact that you've (apparently) completely
missed that proof isn't terribly interesting to me.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:30:28 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mark
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Fri, 22 Sep 2000 23:23:04 +0100
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >>on Fri, 8 Sep 2000 02:06:41 -0500
> >><Z_%t5.136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>> Wrong. In Linux, you can write a signal handler for any signal (other
> >>>> than 9--SIGKILL), ***INCLUDING*** mathematic exceptions (which is what
> >>>> is produced by a div_by_0 error.
> >>>
> >>>And with NT you can provide a Structured Exception Handler to handle any
> >>>fault except NMI.
> >>
> >>Exactly. The failure lay in a poorly programmed application that failed,
> >>not in the OS. The OS stayed up, but even the most rabid Linux Loony
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >My understanding was that it did not. That is an NT problem, since
> >Linux does stay up in this situation, and doesn't require the programmer
> >to write additional exeption handlers. This seems to be another hangover
> >from the DOS days.
>
> I think you might has misunderstood me; my understanding is that
> the app died, but the OS stayed up. (However, without the app,
> the computer unit wouldn't be able to control its part of the ship.)
>
> I fail to see how Linux would be more intelligent in that situation,
> although by default Linux doesn't kill things that divide by 0 (instead,
> one gets a NaN, which is a fairly funny number), so maybe that was
> the problem in a nutshell.
>
> I'll have to try dividing by 0 on both operating systems the next
> chance I get. :-)
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random NaN here
I just did a program with lots of divide by zero for both Windows95 and
Linux. It just printed out the values of 1/sin(x) where x would pass
through 0. The first time under Linux, the application died but not the
OS. A change got it to print NaN and continue. Under Windows95 (using MS
VisualC++ 5.0) neither died, but I got a garbage number.
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:31:03 -0500
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:26:04 +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> dc wrote:
>>On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:47:11 GMT, Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>some of these standards. And because of the Macintosh's excellent
>>>support for networking, Apple product users are well-connected.
>>
>>This I don't quite understand. Not from a 1990's AppleTalk
>>perspective, but from a September 2000 perspective, how are Apple
>>product users "well-connected" compared to the rest of computerdom
>>(meaning, NT and ME)?
>
>I'm having trouble with the phrase 'rest of computerdom' which I assumed
>would mean what people actually use, not NT and ME.
For better or worse, that is what most people actually use.
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:55:11 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Nah - the easiest way is to install linux instead. What you don't
> >run, can't freeze.
>
> Linux can freeze just as well as Windows 98 SE can. Or did you think Linux
> was 100% bug free?
But linux itself hardly ever freezes up (or in my case, never has). And if
something does freeze (application, not linux), it's a matter of about 5
seconds to kill and restart it (rather than rebooting).
> >Oh yeah - and you don't get creep and registry problems with Linux.
>
> You get other problems instead. Like, no real software.
Actually, it's more like no real games. Or very few, anyway. Other than
games, I've not had trouble finding a linux equivilant (or better) to any
windows software. Of course, this depends on what specifically you need
software for... I just use the standard stuff (word processor, news/email,
C development environment, etc).
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 23 Sep 2000 23:04:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>References are just extremely limited forms of pointers
>>(constant pointers; what they point to cannot be changed
>>once declared, thus they are automatically dereferenced)
>>and the above doesn't really do any dispatch other than
>>what's originally done for the original object. To do
>>anything remotely interesting involving dynamic dispatch,
>>pointers are a must.
>How is java different ?
You don't have to deal with *pointers*. Java references
are both safe and can change the objects they point to.
Dan.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:53:52 GMT
In comp.lang.java.advocacy Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : : All licenses restrict your rights and/or access to code in some fashion.
: :
: : Surely not. What about a license that says:
: :
: : ``This program - and its source code - are hereby placed in the public
: : domain.
: :
: : This means you can do whatever you like with them.
: :
: : Modification, redistribution, commercial use, passing the code off as
: : your own - it's all fine by me.''
: That's not a license, it's a declaration. It's also a bit risky, in
: the sue-happy USA.
I figure the only way you can get sued (assuming you include a prominent
disclaimer as well) is if someone subsequently copyrights the work, and
then later claims it's theirs - and that you've stolen it, and placed
it in the public domain illegally.
My way of dealing with this is to publish (usually on usenet) a public
announcement of the release of the software, and the placing of the
code in the public domain. Usually, it's not practical to publish the
entire code - which would probably be the best way of doing it.
--
__________ http://alife.co.uk/ http://mandala.co.uk/
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hex.org.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
