Linux-Advocacy Digest #232, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 21:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: where's the linux performance? (pip)
Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested... (Terry Porter)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Terry Porter)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Terry Porter)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Salvador
Peralta)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Terry Porter)
A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech ("Adam Warner")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Weevil")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Bob Hauck)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 01:14:45 +0100
Jonathan Martindell wrote:
>
+------------------------+
| |
| PLEASE |
| |
| Do not feed the troll. |
| Thank you. |
| |
| The Management |
| |
+----------+--+----------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
* @ @ ( ) * @ )|@ | / @ \ * * @* * +@
_)_()_(_(_|(__)_)_(|(_|/__/__)(_(_))_(_/)_
( Courtesy of WesTralia (TM) )
( A "programmer" that chooses not to use a programmers dream because
some application takes a few more seconds to load - yeah right, pull the
other one Mr. Troll )
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested...
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 00:13:33 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 12:30:53 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Does Red Hat inform all their 5.0 users that they should upgrade because
>> they have tons of problems?
>
> No. Only in COLA are you told that with Linux you don't need to get on the
> upgrade wagon.
RedHat is not Linux.
>
> Unless, of course, you compare an older version of a Linux distribution with
> windows<anything>.
Except that to upgrade Linux only costs the d/lor media fees. To upgrade
Windows costs a minium of $100.
> At which point you'll be told ... "you're using an ancient version of
><distro>, why don't you upgrade?
And why not, its free and easy to do so. After all this is Linux,
and unlike Mafia$oft, Linux is Free Software.
> <insert personal insult here>".
I'll leave that to you Ubertroll, your the expert when it comes
to personal insults.
>
> I know. I was just told this last week after comparing the setup of a home
> LAN using DHCP with RedHat 6.2. WinMe, win 98, and Whistler beta 2.
> Isn't RH 6.2 newer than win98?
Isnt Whistler newer than RedHat6.2 ?
>
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:17:35 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > Those licenses exluded other OS's from being installed instead of
> > > > Windows.
> > >
> > > Okay, okay, so you *are* claiming that.
> > >
> > > But no credible source says that.
> > >
> >
> > The FTC, the DOJ and the vendors said that. Who esle do you want?
>
> No, they don't.
Are you totally ignorant or what. If vendors under a per-processor
license shipped a competing license, the venodr had to pay for the 2
licenses. Those costs were passed to the consumer, which raised the cost
of the computer compared to the vendors competitors. What part of this
do you NOT understand?
Thats what the whole consent decree was about.
>
> They have said that Microsoft made some deals
> with some vendors where MS got paid for each
> processor shipped, with Windows or no.
>
> But none that excluded other OSes.
>
> Ferinstance, dual booting Windows and some obscure
> hobby OS is quite a common configuration for
> the techno-elite. A compy with a per-processor
> license could have addressed that market very
> nicely, thank you.
>
What does that have to do with buying preconfigured computers.
> [snip]
> > > > The last action, which ended in a Consent Decree supposedly stopped
> > > > per-processor licenses because of their predatory nature.
> > >
> > > Microsoft was not convicted of anything that time.
> > >
> > > They just cut a deal.
> >
> > To avoid going to trial and being convicted. Its like plea bargaining.
>
> Yes, but it iddn't work, the DoJ sued anyway, and
> they *went* to trial, and got convicted, and now they
> look likely to win it on appeal.
>
The DOJ took Microsoft to court for violation of the consent decree and
OTHER predatory actions. What do you base your appeal statement on?
Almost every legal analysis I read said the judges asked very hard
questions of the DOJ, but that you really cant predict the outcome based
on the questions.
> They cut a deal to avoid going through all that,
> but it did not work.
>
... because Microsodt didnt curb their behavior. They bragged about it.
> [snip]
> > > > No kidding? Thats whay they signed? To avoid a guilty verdict?
> > >
> > > To avoid a lengly lawsuit. It's not like they needed
> > > those licenses, anyway.
> >
> > To avoid being convicted. 'Those licenses" constituted the majority of
> > vendors.
>
> To avoid the lawsuit. Even if they do win this thing,
> it will still have cost them a fortune.
>
> [snip]
> > > Okay, putting in features that the Department of
> > > Justice had not approved.
> >
> > No, putting in "features" to illegally drive competitors from the
> > marketplace.
>
> Horrors! Competition! Can't have that!
>
Read the damn sentence.
... putting in "features" to illegally drive competitors from the
marketplace.
What part of illegally dont you understand?
> > > But really, you can't expect MS not to compete
> > > just because the DoJ doesn't like competition.
> >
> > They have NEVER competed on a level playing field.
>
> There are no level playing fields. MS competed,
> and the consumers benefited from this
The consumers have NOT bebefited. They lost OS choice and pay higher
prices to Microsoft for the privelidge.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 00:16:45 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 11:02:04 +0200,
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cv5qo$pjq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >> >Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling
>> > case
>> >> >for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least for
> the
>> >> >majority of posters here.
>> >>
>> >> So, are you going to do some Linux advocacy then?
>> >
>> > No. I don't see myself as a Linux advocate, so why should I advocate
>> > Linux?
>>
>> Why do you open a thread in a group supposed to be about Linux advocacy
>> then?
>
> Because I don't see much Linux advocacy here, that's why.
<snip>
And you, a confessed Windows Advocate, have taken it upon yourself
to address this 'notion' of yours ?
When you've done that, how about reconciling China and Taiwan,
this should be a easy task for a superhero like you ?
>
> Mikkel
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 00:18:21 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 21:57:17 +0200,
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9d1hcb$csc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mikkel Elmholdt quoth:
>>
>> ...
>> > Because I don't see much Linux advocacy here, that's why. Most
>> > posters here seem to believe that bashing Microsoft is equivalent to
>> > advocating Linux.
>>
>> ...
>> > But still not being totally converted, I go to a seemingly Linux
>> > advocacy group to find some compelling arguments for using Linux.
>> > And what do I find? A load of
>> > drivel, outright BS, and mindnumbing MS bashing! That frankly
>> > irritates me. You are convincing anyone new with this party line.
>> ...
>>
>> The fact that you only bother to respond to the "MS bashing" style
>> posts casts doubt ( in my mind ) regarding your claim about coming
>> here to "find compelling arguments for using linux".
>
> Hi Salvador
>
> You should not be so paranoid.
^^^^^^^^ observant.
<snip>
>
> Mikkel
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 01:23:41 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <tonI6.3801$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg of the mass
>> > > of symptoms which identify you as a complet and utter moron.
>> >
>> > Everything I know I learned from Victor Borge!
>>
>> Too bad you missed 99% of what Borge taught.
>
> That's true, I was never again good with a piano.
Victor Borge. He was to classical music as Tommy Cooper was to
magicians. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 01:35:26 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <KIjI6.1140$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft was convicted of having a monopoly on PC OSes. The evidence
>> >> provided in the prosecutions argument was their use of monopoly power
> in
>> >> one market (PC OSes) to attempt to gain monopoly in another (web
>> >> browsers), thereby proving they have a monopoly in PC OSes.
>> >
>> >No, psycho. Assuming what you're trying to prove doesn't work.
>>
>> I didn't assume what you're trying to prove;
>>
>
> Of course not, Brainstein. You assumed what *YOU* are trying to prove - that
> Microsoft is a monopoly, and is therefore capable of using monopoly power in
> one market to gain monopoly in another.
Microsoft is a monopoly. The findings of fact state that. Microsoft aren't
fighting the FoF in their appeal but the remedy. If they win the appeal
then the EU will proceed with haste their case against Microsoft. Assuming
the EU come out against Microsoft, and it looks very likely to do so, then
they could be hit for 10% of their worldwide turnover. I wouldn't like to
hold Microsoft shares if that were to happen.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 17:35:59 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mikkel Elmholdt quoth:
> Frankly I waded in the front door less than 48 hours ago. And as
> described before, I did not find any real advocacy going on. Some
> flaming was to be expected, but I was surprised of the level. It
> seemed to me that the whole group was dedicated to this kind of
> posting. Can you honestly say that things are different? Is there
> actually any *real* advocacy in here? Or is this just one big
> flamewar?
That depends on whose posts you choose to read. Among the Linux
people, I think that the group is most damaged by people who insist
on using this forum to engage in political arguments that have
nothing to do with Linux, and/or as a staging site for a whole host
of personal attacks which, again, have nothing to do with Linux.
Somewhere not much further down on the list are the people who insist
on feeding the trolls.
While there is a very clear anti-windows sentiment in this group,
much of it stems from a very real disdain for the way that microsoft
does business, for their arrogance as a company, and because it is
primarily windows people that insist on trolling this group.
As for "real advocacy"... If you have only been here for 48 hours,
you haven't been here long enough to make that judgement one way or
the other. Most of the regulars in this group are intelligent people
who are more than happy to engage in real advocacy. More than a few
have had a significant impact on the development of the Linux OS and
its related tools. And some actually do advocacy professionally.
But again, you will miss most of that if all you do is waste your
time getting into flamewars, namecalling, and worrying about whether
or not the group is "really engaging in advocacy".
Think about the term "self-fulfilling prophecy" for a minute and
meditate on how your own behaviour here may relate to the term.
...snip...
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 00:24:57 GMT
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 May 2001 19:54:17 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:ADVI6.297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their places
> >> (IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of
> >living
> >> off the Microsoft gravy train. That being said, they do some things which
> >> are very unpleasing. My main complaint with Microsoft is that they stifle
> >> innovation. They never have come up with an original idea.
> >
> >Bullshit, and a big one.
> >
>
> Man, you'd better brush up on your history.
>
> >To name a few of the top of my head:
> >COM
> >COM+
>
> These are not original ideas, they came out of OMG and CORBA
>
Sorry to jump in, but I believe that MS deserves its merits recognized.
The idea of an abstract interface allowing to make applications speak
together is as old as Noah. There are two big problems to solve. One is
standardization, the other is security. The first one is easily solved
if you're big enough, because you choose a standard and everybody else
will follow. The second one is the big trouble. If any application can
use methods and properties of any other application, how can you protect
your system from malicious attacks? Well, Microsoft innovation was to
implement a solution without giving a damn about security, which was
unprecedented in the computer history, and that must be recognized.
> >IE (No other browser can come even close, Mozilla can't render yahoo.com
> >properly, and crash when you try to send a bug report)
> >
>
> Talk about big BullCraps:
>
> Are you trying to tell us that IE was an original idea?
Sorry to contradict you, but also in that case, MS merits are
indisputable. The idea of an Internet Browser whose sole purpose is not
to browse the Web, but to screw a competitor, is unprecedented and
innovative.
G. Colla
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 00:21:15 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 11:04:12 +0200,
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
><snip> On Fri, 4 May 2001 17:33:27 +0200,
>> >>
>> >> Most of it is in response to said trolling.
>> >
>> > Hmmmm ...... maybe. But if I look at the most recent postings, we have
>> > within 24 hours these:
>> >
>> > "If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested..."
>> > "The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT"
>> > "Windows NT: lost in space?"
>> > "Windos is *unfriendly*"
>> You need a longer sample, 24 hours is in no way sufficient to
>> obtain accurate data.
>
> No, I realize that. I also stated that my method was non-scientific, so you
> really don't have to tll me that again.
Repetition is usually the only way to get the point home, especially
with a Wintroll like you.
>
>> > All MS bashing to boot. I failed to find any initial Linux bashing
> threads
>> > in the same period, however. Totally non-scientific statistics, I know,
> but
>> > still ....
>> >
>> >> >Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling
>> > case
>> >> >for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least for
> the
>> >> >majority of posters here.
>> >>
>> >> So, are you going to do some Linux advocacy then?
>> >
>> > No. I don't see myself as a Linux advocate, so why should I advocate
> Linux?
>> Then what are you doing in a Linux advocacy news group?
>
> Se my other reply. And try to understand.
I did see it, I understood, and I wasn't impressed.
I think you and I will be having some fun Mikkel the Wintroll.
>
> Mikkel
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 00:24:36 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 11:14:52 +0200,
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 4 May 2001 14:50:03 +0200,
>> Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > A quick (and non-scientific) overview of this newsgroup
>> A quick overview of your headers reveals you to be a Windows user.
>>
>> > reveals that the
>> > majority of posts are related to anti-Microsoft topics and not to the
>> > official topic of the newsgroup, namely advocating the virtues of Linux.
>> Sadly we dont get time todomuch Linux advocacy, as COLA is a popular venue
>> for Windows users like you to argue the benefits of Windows.
>>
>> Now if they would stay in the NG's for that subject, COLA could *return*
>> to advocacy.
>>
>> > It's a well-known fact, that if you cannot really come up some good
>> > arguments for your case, then you can always fall back on hammering on
> your
>> > opponents weaknesses.
>> Whilst tyour statement is correct, Linux has no opponents, its Free
> Software.
>>
>> > Is that the case here?
>> Its the case everywhere, not only here.
>>
>> > If it is, then I find it rather
>> > lame.
>> I couldn't care what you find 'rather lame'.
>
> You care enough to answer.
Dont confuse entertainment with 'caring'.
>
> >
>> > Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling
> case
>> ^^^^^^^^ Linux
>> > for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least for the
>> ^^^^^ Windows
>> > majority of posters here.
>> Wintrolls
>
> I totally agree. (hint: I am *not* a Wintroll, Terry, and I don't think that
> you have ever seen one single argument in favour of Windows from me)
The definition of a Wintroll, is not one whom openly supports Windows,
but one who attempts to 'support' Linux whilst covertly advocating Windows.
You are such a poster.
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 17:38:19 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin quoth:
> A wild-ass guess would be "TAB_COMPLETION=TRUE" in the .bashrc or
> something. Check man bash, I'm sure it's in there.
...along with about a dozen other text completion options. :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 00:27:54 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 11:29:04 +0200,
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9cu8nu$8dv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mikkel Elmholdt"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
>> Now have a nice day, and don't come back until you got something relevant
>> to add to the discussion, instead of inviting even more anti-ms flames
>> with your inflammatory statements (hint: pot, kettle, black).
>
> Damn, you people are thin-skinned, aren't you?
I'm not.
> Out of God-knows-how-many
> knee-jerk-reflex flame postings I have received,
I warned you already Mikkel, you *will* get as good as you give
on COLA, and your posts have been trolling since the start.
> only one (ONE) have
> bothered to post something akin to a Linux advocacy (thanks to Salvador
> Peralta).
Perhaps he doesnt know you yet ?
> Get the point by now?
That you're a Wintroll, yes I get that point.
> With advocacy like this, you are not
> convincing anyone new, you are only preaching to the converted.
Thats what COLA is for, in case you didnt know.
>
> Mikkel
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 12:32:07 +1200
Paul Thurrott of WinInfo:
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20985
(when I wrote "'nuff said" the other day it was only because I was just
posting the URL :-)
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 00:43:39 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2CXI6.22444$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9d109q$g7c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The original internet wasn't even developed on Unix. My point is
that,
> > > if the government had released the original DARPANET code under a
> > > license like the GPL, companies like DEC, IBM, and Sun would have
never
> > > adopted it.
> >
> > Why not? The GPL doesn't license protocols. Companies would be quite
free
> > to develop a compatible implementation, using the GPL source as a
> > reference.
>
> No, they're not. Using GPL'd source as a reference makes the work a
derived
> work, and subject to the GPL's license terms.
I've never seen *that* interpretation before. Nothing in the GPL prohibits
you from using GPL code as a reference. The GPL only covers the specific
implentation of an idea, not the idea itself. In other words, only the
actual source code is covered. You're free to implement any techniques in
GPL code you like, provided you write the code yourself. If you use the GPL
code, then your own code becomes GPL as well.
This is simple stuff. :)
--
Weevil
================================================================
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 00:43:41 GMT
On Thu, 3 May 2001 00:16:38 -0400, pookoopookoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> But...I have a buddy in computer engineering at McGill university, and he
> said it was...what is the difference between a real-time system and a
> non-realtime one?
A realtime system is usually defined as one that has predictable
worst-case response times for various events (e.g. interrupts, context
switching) as long as the system is not overloaded. Windows and Linux
don't fit that definition because some things can take an arbitrarily
long time. Paging from disk is an obvious example, but other things
like interrupt latencies are not well-defined either. Linux and
Windows (like most general-purpose operating systems) are optimized for
overall throughput, not worst-case response.
Windows and Linux both have a "real time" process class, which may be
what your friend was referring to. What this really means is that such
processes run at higher priority than normal user processes and can be
made non-pageable. However, this doesn't mean that the system is
magically made into a realtime system as things like interrupt latency
are still unspecified.
Both Windows and Linux have add-ons that basically run the normal Linux
or Windows kernel as a process under a real-time scheduler. These
hybrid systems _do_ meet the definition of "realtime", but only for
processes that are created in a special way.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 00:48:34 GMT
JVercherIII wrote:
>
> I don't know too much about Delphi but I'll look into it. I'm still
> learning C++, Java, and Perl among other things in college. Pays to be
> diversified.
>
Well, in a nutshell, Delphi gives you the same WYSIWYG visual interface
of VB, but the code you write is Object Pascal instead of Basic, making
it robust, easy to maintain, and as fast as C++. Object Pascal is very
similar to C++, but, because of the strict type checking of Pascal, it's
easier to write robust code, and harder to make mistakes. In my opinion
it would be better to learn Delphi first and C++ after, because the
object handling is the same, but Delphi/Pascal is "cleaner", so you have
less Stroustrup whims and C heritage to cope with.
G. Colla
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:49:48 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > Please name the top 20 OEM that does not have a ppl.
> > >
> > > Oh, I don't think there was one- Compaq was, in my
> > > humble opinion, *right* about this. A top 20 OEM that
> > > tried to foist lesser operating systems on their customers
> > > would not be top-20 for very long!
> > >
> >
> > They foisted M$ OSs on people. You ststement does not hold water.
>
> They gave their customers what they wanted; that is what
> it takes to be a top-20 OEM.
>
No, they didnt. You are plainly not worth any more time. You ignore
evidence, including quotes from M$ executive.
> [snip]
> > > Then I suggest you are being sloppy with your accusations; you
> > > know full well that MS never excluded anyone. At their *worst*
> > > they want you to sell *their* product, whatever else you may sell.
> >
> > Excluding OS and app competitors is what per-processor and per-system
> > licensing is all about.
>
> No. It's about selling Microsoft product.
No, its about Micro$ofts criminal, unethical, immoral behavior.
If you agree with their methods, you can much of a peron, either.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
