Linux-Advocacy Digest #458, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 19:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here! (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Microsoft PATH. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Microsoft PATH. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: No More Linux! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:15:52 GMT
On Sat, 12 May 2001 21:17:42 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>What does "less than steller" mean? Details! Details!
>>
>> Blue screens.
>
>Really? I spend a lot of time trying to track that sort of thing down.
I think the manufacturers are in the process of abandoning Win98SE and
concentrating on the Win2k kernel in prep for XP.
>>>Ah yes, latency. Another area where DirectX sucks.
>>
>> We are getting 2ms which is better than ASIO can manage and way better
>> than MME.
>
>Eh? I thought ASIO was lower latency that DirectX. What's MME?
2ms is about as low as it can go at this point.
MME drivers are the standard non wdm VXD variety.
>>>> The drivers are stable under Win2k but so-so under Win98SE/ME.
>>>
>>>How are they so-so? Details!
>>
>> Many people reporting blue screens, lockups and stuttering audio.
>>
>> They run very smooth under Win2k for the most part.
>
>Blue screens and lockups? Not seen those (that doesn't mean they don't
>exist).
Midiman is one of the best as far as drivers and support are
concerned. The wdm focus is on 2k and xp and the mileage varies with
Win98SE/ME.
>Stuttering audio - ah well...
>
>Perhaps we should take this offline out of this audio group, otherwise
>people like T Max might feel they're being ignored.
He's the only person in my killfile at the moment. I rarely killfile
anybody but he is really a waste of cycles.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 23:17:06 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote :
>The definition you provided did not specify a large quantity of
>available games.
Consumers prefer a choice of games. It's fairly obvious.
Splitting hairs over the theoretical excellence of Linux as a gaming
OS is half-amusing; but it is hardly the mark of an intelligent Linux
advocate.
If you want to advocate an OS, then be frank about the strengths and
weaknesses of that particular OS. Linux is not a great gaming OS, if
only for one reason : there are hardly any games worth mentioning
available, and there is certainly not a plentiful supply of them.
--
"S+M is outta the question, have you got a better suggestion
I'm fed up of waving my right hand" - rat salad www.ratsalad.co.uk
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:17:11 -0400
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Do YOU know any way to write
>>> software that uses a library without using the library? (Aside from the
>>> legally non-existent concept of an API, of course, an separate argument
>>> I am even now pursuing. Feel free to pile on, but please don't beg the
>>> question.)
>> Copyright covers distribution, not using.
> Copyright covers using. Using softawre involves making copies. Making
> those copies, unless done in the context of the statutory exception,
> require the permission of the copyright holder.
In a strict sense, no, copyright doesn't cover use. I can *use* a book
any way I like, as long as I've legally obtained a copy of that book. I
can't copy and redistribute parts of that book, except in the context
of fair use or by permission of the copyright owner.
It's something of a unique situation that use of software typically
requires an additional copy of the software at the time of execution.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:30:28 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >Apart from the fact that this decay is debated hotly (no pun intended)
about
> >whether it is random or not, One-time pads created on PC's without access
to
> >such generator are going to be predictable at some level.
>
> You show the same degree of competency in quantum physics as you do
> cryptography, Erik. What gave you the impression that anyone is
> 'debating' whether or not nuclear decay is random? It seems to me to be
> a rather fundamentally secure aspect of physics that this is, in fact,
> the very definition of 'random', at least as close as we can possibly
> get in the real world. As far as I know, in fact, it is truly random,
> and other than Einstein's intuition (long since proven false) that "God
> does not play dice" almost a century ago, nobody seriously questions
> this.
What is debated is that we cannot know if it is truly random or not. The
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows that the mere observation of the
particle effects its state, and thus its randomness. Even if the decay were
completely random, there mere act of measuring it would make it non-random.
Einstein tried to prove the HUP wrong with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR)
paradox, but it's still very hotly debated.
Your problem max, is that you are only willing to accept what you believe to
be true.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:20:07 -0400
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> And if the US judicial system fails then the EU is just waiting to jump
> >> in. As they have said they are waiting for the current appeal process
> >> in the US to be completed out of courtesy but if the appeal goes in
> >> Microsoft's favour then it will be full steam ahead.
> >
> > And poor Microsoft won't be able to bribe senators and politicians.
>
> It also won't drag on four years. The US system is a farce. By the time
> a decision is finally reached it is too late. Microsoft have exploited
> this for over a decade. Their comeuppance is long over due.
How do you like all those things getting integrated into Windows XP
there...Roy! My god when will the lawbreaking end!!!
That evil Mr Gates is integrating, or "tying to the sale" or "feloniously
forcing one to buy" or what ever you prefer to call it lets see, CD burning
software, Media Player, Digital Editing, Firewall, lets not forget the
browser STAYS integrated! tee hee...
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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, 12 May 2001 13:06:40 +0200
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9djs2t$bc2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > "JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> The US judicial system has already failed, it is now in the "fix"
phase.
> > And
> >> who cares about what Europe thinks? Let them eat cake...err...Linux.
> >
> > You *are* aware to the fact that Europe is bigger, stronger, more
populated
> > and much richer than the US, don't you?
>
> Of course he isn't. His view is the typical myopic american one. Microsoft
> may well be still held in high regard in the US but to the rest of the
> world they portray the US in the worst light possible (next to their
> president of course :-)
Don't know about the rest of the world, but at least here, MS is a life
saver for many many *many* people.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/31/219214&mode=nested
(not mine, but I know what he speaks to be very true. The average person
here wouldn't be able to use linux with a gun to his head. And I have yet to
see a truely ported Linux, the way Windows was ported. You know what, even
full bidi support would be a good thing, which is something that I
understand already happening/happened.)
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:24:33 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > COM was a great boon for developers, able to share compiled bits of code
> > > written in different languages, and allowing apps to communicate with
> each
> > > other easily. On linux, CORBA has barely taken off in the ActiveX
> emulation
> > > project (Gnome) 5 years behind microsoft. On the microsoft platform,
> COM
> > > and ActiveX are being tossed into the legacy bin as the common language
> > > runtime is being rolled out. The common language runtime (and MSIL
> > > instruction set) is a huge boon for developers and users and an open
> > > standard (ECMA). COM, CORBA, and ActiveX are all junk compared to the
> > > common language runtime. The user experience and developer experience
> will
> > > be so much better with the common language runtime (part of .net on the
> > > windows platform).
> >
> > Linux developers aren't stupid enough to try to copy COM. At least I
> > hope not.
>
> Funny you should say that. Mozilla heavily uses a COM clone they call XPCOM
> (cross platform COM i guess), and IIRC Bonobo is also based on COM's design
> as well.
>
Anyone have links to explain the similarities/differences between MS COM
and XPCOM? XPCOM can't be a direct clone of MS COM. That won't work
under Linux except for root. XPCOM would have to be more similar to DSOM
or the Java model.
> > > Does anyone know of any efforts to support the common language runtime
> on
> > > linux? That would make the platform so much better and development of
> new
> > > stuff much quicker.
> >
> > I did find a couple of sites that I don't think were jokes on the
> > subject. Mostly Linux seems to be leaning toward CORBA-SOM-DSOM.
> > Especially as IBM is putting lots of money into the arena.
>
> Is SOM/DSOM available for Linux?
I don't think so. IBM is investing more than a billion dollars in Linux,
so It would seem likely that some of that will be spent on SOM/DSOM.
After all, they want Linux to integrate into IBM networks. You can do
CORBA, but it isn't exactly straight forward.
If anyone has better info, please post. I'm looking for info on the
subject, but my google searches get drowned in hits, mostly in languages
I don't read even a little bit :(
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:30:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 12 May 2001 21:06:22 GMT
<iBhL6.9065$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
Sounds fishy to me....but then, I'm replying just for the halibut...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random pun chain here
EAC code #191 12d:13h:09m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When you're not aggravated enough.
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:33:06 GMT
On Sat 12 May 2001 05:08, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 11 May 2001 15:33:35 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Quite, apparently. No computer generated algorithm can generate truly
>> > random numbers. /dev/random can create exceeding complicated
> predictable
>> > patterns, but that doesn't make the truly random.
>>
>> /dev/random is not a PRNG. It is more akin to the various hardware
>> schemes that people have mentioned (resistor noise, radioactive decay,
>> etc). The generated numbers will meet lots of statistical tests for
>> randomness, and they also meet your critera of being extremely hard
>> (probably impossible in practice) to predict from past behavior. They
>> do not repeat in a cycle as the output of a PRNG would. The source code
>> contains this explanation:
>
> [explanation deleted]
>
> However, this only produces a small finite amount of randomness. We're
> talking about things like a one-time pad which might need 500MB of
> randomness, which is not something that this could product without
> repeating or some other predictable pattern.
>
Not a problem: /dev/random blocks until there is enough (estimated)
entropy available to fulfill the application's request. You can run "dd
if=/dev/random of=otp.bin bs=1 count=500m" and leave it in the background
for a week or so, and *voila* hot toasty random bits! If you want bits
quickly but don't need them to be truly random, you should use /dev/urandom
instead.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:34:52 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> =
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Everett
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on 12 May 2001 07:52:34 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >On Fri, 11 May 2001 18:31:58 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@lexi=
deb.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
> >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Lyttle
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >>on Fri, 11 May 2001 14:04:33 GMT
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>>Peter K=F6hlmann wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Greg Cox wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > It wasn't my analogy but I believe it was more about how
> >>>> > horrible that a unique ID number could be used to invade
> >>>> > your privacy by identifying and registering your computer
> >>>> > while your car already has many ID numbers on certain parts
> >>>> > registered in a database somewhere completely out of your
> >>>> > control.
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, your car certainly won=B4t surf the net to be identified by
> >>>> all those who paid MS good money for this ident info.
> >>>> Your car=B4s numbers will only be needed should it be stolen or
> >>>> in an accident.
> >>>Haven't seen ODB-III have you? How do you think that "On Star" thing=
> >>>works? Current plans are to have all vehicles broadcast, on demand, =
an
> >>>ID. If your car is detected, via satellite, to be speeding, it will =
be
> >>>remotely put into limp mode.
> >>
> >>Even better [*] -- shut off the engine entirely; car coasts to a stop=
,
> >>police are called and surround the now-useless vehicle.
> >>
> >
> >Better yet... Don't buy a car with OnStar
> =
> I don't plan to, at this stage. (Not enough money; OnStar is for
> upper-end vehicles only.)
> =
> But there is a service in development -- if not outright deployed --
> that can be used by the police to shut down a vehicle, if it's
> reported stolen and a patrol car notices it moving around.
> =
Calif. is pushing for that one very hard. By the time it gets
implemented, is should have the ability to build an electronic box to do
that, and be just senile enough to think it would be great fun to stand
on an overpass and shut down cars being tail-gated by semis. Who needs
to go to a movie to see great explosions. Please note : If Onstar can
unlock your car, so can I. If the police can shutdown your car, so can
I. Think of the market for such devices! Professional carjackers steal
your car and reprogram it with the ID of a salvaged vehicle! This is
already being done. Watch out for late model cars from lowend used car
lots. They are often assembled from two or three wrecked vehicles. The
elecronics can get very screwey even if the bodies aren't.
> >and don't use Microsoft Windows.
> =
> At home, I'm almost all Linux. At work, it's a mostly-NT hybrid.
> Hopefully at some point, that'll change.
> =
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 12d:22h:02m actually running Linux.
> I don't hate Microsoft. Just their products.
-- =
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:37:31 +0100
>> Wll, hard links are possible (surely you've had a cross linked
>> filesystem before :-).
>
> No, I thought that hard links were for the same file system only, aren't
> they?
I meant crosslinking within a filesystem.
>>Also, if they put the code at a much lower level, ie belop
>> the API layer, then the soft links would work transparently.
>
> But would you be able to use that from DOS? *Old* DOS? That was a major
> thing that they had to remember, anything that they did had to be usable
> from DOS as well. See how they managed to fit > 8.3 file names, for an
> example of being tied up by backward compatability.
Yep. but, why couldn't they make .lnk files normal files (ie, they look
like lnk files to DOS apps), but to Win95 apps, they are transparent
links.
> (And how they were idiotic enough to put it on *NTFS*, bah!)
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:40:20 GMT
Did somebody say sole?
flatfish
On Sat, 12 May 2001 22:30:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Sat, 12 May 2001 21:06:22 GMT
><iBhL6.9065$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>[snip]
>
>Sounds fishy to me....but then, I'm replying just for the halibut...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:55:57 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > We are tho,... (ashamed) we could do magnitudes better than this.
> > > > > The original Amiga was developed by the orignial team from Atari.
> > > >
> > > > Not true. The Amiga was developed by a group of people, only one or
two
> > of
> > > > them was from Atari (Well, Jay Minor created the chips for Atari,
don't
> > know
> > > > if he actually worked for them), while others worked for HP and
other
> > > > companies.
> > > >
> > > > > Their mobo design was very advanced for the price compared to the
> > Intel
> > > > > boxes of that day. If Amiga had better management we would be
seeing
> > > > > something equivalent to an SGI box or better. But, such that it
is...
> > > >
> > > > It also had many limitations, for instance, serial ports were very
> > > > unreliable do to their low priority over other things like the video
> > > > display. This made it difficult to do reliable MIDI without an
add-on
> > > > serial card.
> > >
> > > I always reset the priority on these items.
> >
> > And just exactly how did you do this? You ripped the paula chip apart
and
> > rewired it's microcircuits? The interrupt controller is a part of the
> > custom chipset, and not something you can change.
>
> You're starting to sound dumber every post. This part is utter bullshit
> from your perspective. All interrupt controllers can be reprogrammed or
> have priorities changed.
> Especially the Amigas chipset.
Not true. The Amiga's interrupt controller is hard wired to certain
interrupt for certain devices. You can't change it. Period.
If this were true, there wouldn't be such a thing as a PIC (Programmable
Interupt Controller) it would just be called an Interrupt controller.
> > Therefore, you are lying.
>
> No, not lying... you can set the various process priorities in the
> startup script that the amiga used during that time.
Process priorities are not the same thing as interrupt priorities.
> I don't think you even had an Amiga... you've only shown that you've
> read the PC tabloids and believed in their BS.
I owned an Amiga for 5 years, going back to 1989 and finally selling my
2500/30 in 1994. I had a PC and an Amiga concurrently between 1991 and
1994. I wrote quite a bit of software for the Amiga.
> > > Actually, I've never seen
> > > better animation better than the Amiga in its days. I have read from
> > > various magazines of that era, that the Atari team (originals) were
very
> > > much involved in the hardware side...
> >
> > Only Jay Minor worked for Atari, and even then I think he simply
contracted
> > and was not an employee.
> >
> > > the OS was a Cambridge University design.
> >
> > No, it wasn't. It was designed by R.J Mical and Carl Sassenrath
primarily.
>
> That's not what is in the OS developers book. It began as a university
> project.
It didn't.
AmigaOS began life as something called CaOS, which Carl Sassenrath designed.
RJ Mical designed and wrote that amiga "intuition" which was the GUI and
windowing library. DOS was originally purchased from MetaComCo, and added
in.
> > > A very compact OS! The best I've ever seen to fit in under 1
> > > Mb of ram.
> >
> > It was indeed very good, but it also lacked many very important
features,
> > like Virtual memory, Memory protection, and isolated process space.
>
> That is why I bought the A3000. It had a hardware memory management
> unit.
> Remember it was the Amiga OS vs DOS at that time.
It had an MMU but wasn't used by the OS.
> > > The serial port I've never used... as a matter of use, the internet
> > > wasn't there for the average user to use modems then. I never used a
> > > modem for it then... at the time I was more interested in the CPU
> > > architecture to program.
> >
> > Apart from what you could find at your local Amiga shop, about the only
way
> > to find software was to get a modem and call BBS's. I'd say you are an
> > exception, almost all Amiga owners I knew had modems.
> >
> > > The graphics were great during that time as
> > > well as it could do the best animation of its time. The basic
> > > interpreter from Microsoft was better than the interpreter for Intel.
> >
> > You're not aware that Microsoft wrote the Basic interpreter for it?
>
> Whats the matter, can't you read?? I just said it was a better
> interpreter than the same one that they wrote for the intel platforms.
I thought you were referring to the PC interpreter. My mistake.
> > > Amigas' problems were from management! They should have stayed
with
> > > what they could do best. The developers of the Amiga may have well
been
> > > from other companies, but Atari sticks out far more in my mind than
the
> > > rest.
> >
> > Atari had nothing to do with the Amiga, other than loaning them money.
When
> > the time came to collect on the loan, Jack Tramiel was going to absorb
the
> > Amiga but Commodore bailed them out, saving them from being owned by
Atari.
>
> No... wrong again. A lot of the original Atari developers (Hardware)
> went over to the original Amiga... later Commodore bought out Amiga.
No, only Jay Minor worked for Atari. Originally, it was founded by Jay and
another Atari employee, but he left not long after the company was founded,
and long before Commodore bought them.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:56:49 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ALso, the Amiga and Atari were very much alike. the A500 was similar to
> a Atari version that looked very similar.
Actually, that was "Tramiel's revenge". After getting screwed out of buying
the Amiga by Commodore, he decided to "exact his revenge" by creating
something that was similar.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:42:34 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dave Martel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please submit your votes for:
>
>
> Most Talented Wintroll?
>
Not a Wintroll at all, but a reasonable, albeit stubborn, Win advocate. I
nominate Erik Funkenbusch.
> Least Talented Wintroll?
>
Faster than a speeding bullet, dumber than a high school student, able to
leap Win2k clusters in a single bound, is it a bird? Is it an aeroplane?
No, it's Jan Johanssen!
> Most Pitiful Wintroll?
>
Jan Johanssen.
> Most Likely Wintroll To Be Plonked?
>
Jan Johansen.
> Most Likely Wintroll To Be TOS'd?
>
Jan Johanssen.
> Wintroll Most In Need Of A Good Spanking From His Mommy?
>
Jan Johanssen.
> Feel free to explain your vote and/or to suggest other categories.
>
'Nuff said.
> Naturally the contestants are not allowed to participate in the voting
> and judging.
>
>
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Linux!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:59:44 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Ahem, all FreeBSD packages are available as debs for Debian.
> > >
> > > Name one that isn't (and that isn't FreeBSD-exclusive, like 'ports' or
> > > something).
> >
> > That's not the point. Suppose I come across a random linux package.
What
> > are the chances it's going to work with your distribution?
>
> You're dodging the point.
No, that is precisely my original point.
> > > > The problem is that there are hundreds of Linux distros, but only a
> > single
> > > > FreeBSD distro.
> > >
> > > Are you forgetting about NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDI, MacOS X, etc. ? I can
> > > easily say, "The problem is that there are hundreds of BSD distros,
> > > but only a single Debian Linux distro".
> >
> > No, those aren't FreeBSD. The BSD's are now quite different. FreeBSD
and
> > OpenBSD or NetBSD all use vastly different kernels, while Debian and Red
Hat
> > and Mandrake all use the same kernels.
>
> So?
So? They're not based on the same kernel, therefore they aren't the same or
even close OS.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:48:22 -0400
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> JS PL <the_win98box_in_the_corner> wrote:
> >
> >[prison!....come on....you can't be that deluded...]
> >
> Much as it might surprise you some felons do actually spend time in
> jail.
>
> What will not happen, but should, is prosecution under the RICO Act
> and confiscation of his, Ballmer, and the other top executives'
> entire fortunes.
And your imaginary "felon" as head of software development at Microsoft is
continuing his XP plan to do exactly what the DOJ and Jackson don't want him
to do! Integrate! Integrate! Integrate! It's pure comedy. This begs the
question. If it's agin the law, why don't Jackson stop him? Oh that's
right....the appeals court has already ruled the integration (the basis of
the whole litigation) is a GOOD thing. When it's all said and done I hope Mr
Jackson isn't indicted and imprisoned for his trampling upon Microsofts
constitutional rights. That's where they put felons you know!? tee hee.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
