Linux-Advocacy Digest #495, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:10:50 GMT
Said Ed Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 13 May 2001 02:00:31 GMT;
[...]
>--
>Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately.
> Unconstitutional takes a little longer.
LOL!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:10:51 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 12 May 2001 17:03:48
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Question, why is it everytime a company is bought towards the DOJ, its
>> >always the governments fault, reality stick please! why would a
>> >government wish to unnecessarily ruin a cash cow? Microsoft broke the
>>
>> What makes you think they are a cash cow for anybody but themselves
>> and the ones they have deluded into supporting their illegal
>> activities ?
>>
>> They have paid no Federal Taxes for the last six years.
>
>Their empolyers does, and their stock holders, it even out, in the end.
"Evens out in the end?" WHAT end? Corporations are supposed to pay
taxes, too. One of the most 'lucrative' (to avoid confusing their
ill-gotten gains with competitive success) corporations in the world
doesn't pay them, though. And you're trying to claim that "evens out",
somehow?
>If it doesn't, however, I want to find out how I can register myself as a
>company in the US.
Your confusion between a company (any business) and a corporation is not
coincidental, nor unimportant. Not that businesses don't have to pay
taxes. But only corporations get away with not paying taxes, it seems.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:10:52 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 13 May
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Question, why is it everytime a company is bought towards the DOJ, its
>> >always the governments fault, reality stick please! why would a
>> >government wish to unnecessarily ruin a cash cow? Microsoft broke the
>>
>> What makes you think they are a cash cow for anybody but themselves
>> and the ones they have deluded into supporting their illegal
>> activities ?
>>
>> They have paid no Federal Taxes for the last six years.
>
>If they don't pay federal taxes then I'm sure that they are not lawfully
>obligated to pay. Are you suggesting that they just make up a dollar amount
>off the top of their head, and send it in just for the fun of it? Or are you
>a simply a little bit jealous?
Wow; I'd have never seen that "jealous" argument coming, I swear!
I think you're just jealous of the fact that everyone else is a WHOLE
lot smarter than you are, JS PL.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:10:54 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001 17:43:51
>On Sat, 12 May 2001 20:10:58 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 14:37:28
>> >On Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> To wit, an algorithm is a recursive computational procedure with a
>> >> finite number of steps. Translation tables need not apply;
>> >
>> >You can implement a translation table as a series of if-else tests,
>> >thus turning it into a "computational procedure". Does that make a
>> >translation table into an algorithm?
>>
>> No, quite specifically. If-else tests are conditional processing, not
>> algorithms. An algorithm is a purely mathematical construct. Two plus
>> two doesn't equal seven IF...
>
>Many mathematical functions are non-continuous. They are defined as
>one thing over one interval, and something else over another.
These would be mathematical units, integers of time, are they not? That
isn't conditional on any thing but the assumption the world will still
exist at the end of the for...next loop.
>The unit
>step is one example that comes to mind. Sounds like an if-else test to
>me (if time<0 then value=0 else value=1).
So 2+2=7 IF what?
>> An algorithm in software does not and cannot use translation tables;
>> every value must be calculated, not looked up, or it is not algorithmic.
>
>Well, ok. So, if I write a procedure that takes the first N terms of
>the infinite series for the sine function and sums them, we can agree
>that what we have is an algorithm for computing an approximation of the
>sine of an angle, right?
>
>Now, suppose that instead of using the series, I have a lookup table
>with a whole bunch of pre-computed values for the sine function. Then,
>instead of summing the series, I do a couple of table lookups and an
>interpolation to get my answer. Is this now merely a "computational
>procedure" rather than an algorithm?
No, since you derived what you falsely called a "translation table"
from... what? A translation of something? No, from mathematical
calculations. You see how this works; there is no amount of reduction
you can use that will cause a translational table and an algorithm to be
interchangeable UNLESS you simply destroy the definition of both.
Semantic word-games aside, algorithms are calculations; translation
tables need not apply.
[...]
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:10:55 GMT
Said Chronos Tachyon in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
>On Sat 12 May 2001 03:10, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>> You misunderstand the theoretical concept of "true" random numbers. We
>> already knew this would happen back when pseudo-random numbers (rather
>> than merely 'apparently random numbers', I guess) began to be possible
>> on the PC platform. The random numbers you're getting are
>> pseudo-random; they look random for almost every practical purpose when
>> all you really need is an *arbitrary* number. A *truly* random number
>> is not so easily come by.
>
>For reasons I explained earlier in this thread, both radioactive decay and
>thermal noise are both *truly* random according to Quantum Mechanics.
Thermal noise would be, if it weren't so damned predictable, once you
have characterized the noise generated by whatever components you're
using. Change components, and the noise changes, but that makes the
noise "arbitrary", not "random". Thermal noise averages out too much,
just as things like "heat" and "sound" to in the macro-cosmic world.
Sound certainly isn't random, is it? Yet nobody can predict the next
sound that I make. Still, if you watch me over time, you will detect
obvious patterns, not only in whether I make sounds, but in the sounds
that I make.
To be *truly* random, the results can *never* be predicted, no matter
how long you observe. Only *direct* quantum effects, such as
radioactive decay, are sufficient; thermal noise is close, but still
merely a pseudo-random number generator. Far less predictable than a
quasi-random generator, such as software-only solutions, but not
mathematically random.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:10:56 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001 16:43:44
>On Sat, 12 May 2001 17:08:15 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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,
>
>That's quite true. But, if you need that many random numbers and you
>need them quickly, then you turn to one of the various methods that
>have been suggested. But it does not make the numbers predictable in
>any way. In fact, it'll block if you try to read it and there isn't
>enough entropy available.
That's cute, the way you use 'entropy' as if it were a substance.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:10:56 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
>"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.
That sentences doesn't make any sense unless you can generate a truly
random number, AND you misunderstand what 'truly random' means.
>Even if the decay were
>completely random, there mere act of measuring it would make it non-random.
As I said; you obviously misunderstand the very concept of random, if
you think anything can affect it. You mistake Shroedinger's cat with
Heisenberg's uncertainty.
>Einstein tried to prove the HUP wrong with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR)
>paradox, but it's still very hotly debated.
Among philosophers, maybe, but everything, even their own existence, is
debatable by philosophers.
>Your problem max, is that you are only willing to accept what you believe to
>be true.
Hasn't been much of a problem, actually. Quite the opposite; despite
the fact that you are right, I seem to be the one with the least amount
of delusions about what it is I know to be true. Then again, it seems
rather strange that you would be able to type that sentence, but be
unable to go back and read it to discover how stupid and senseless it
is. OF COURSE I am only willing to accept "what I believe to be true".
Is there some definition of 'accept' that would be appropriate that I'm
not aware of that you could be using? Were you seriously trying to
ridicule me, or were you just pretending to?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:10:57 GMT
Said Chronos Tachyon in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
>On Sat 12 May 2001 05:30, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [Snip]
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>The EPR paradox was essentially "solved" in the 1960's, when Bell's
>Inequality was hypothesized as a way to prove the Copenhagen Interpretation
>of Quantum Mechanics (CI/QM, "spooky action at a distance") or Einstein's
>local hidden variable theory (HV/QM). The results came out strongly in
>favor of CI/QM, even after much peer review and many attempts to repeat the
>experiment. There is still some minor debate about methodology, mostly by
>eccentrics but occasionally by serious phyicists, but the results are
>widely accepted as canon. Since all post-Bell physics pretty much assumes
>that CI/QM is true, especially quantum computing, the evidence is in fact
>very strong that HV/QM is incorrect. Whenever you hear anyone talking
>about superposition or collapsing quantum eigenstates, they are talking
>about CI/QM, which would be right out the window with counting the angels
>dancing on a pinhead if HV/QM were actually correct. The fact that we can
>discuss such things, propose experiments, then get meaningful and correct
>results from them is strong evidence indeed that CI/QM is, if not the final
>"truth", then at least a special case.
Thanks, Chronos. I understood this, without knowing it; I appreciate
your explaining it so succinctly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:10:58 GMT
Said Roy Culley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001 02:25:43
[...]
>The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
>is not a result of quantum theory but the reason why there must be a quantum
>theory. [...]
Well said. Nice inverted teleology; makes the point very clearly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:10:59 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
[...]
>Heisenberg theorized that the mere act of observation altered the subject,
>perhaps imperceptibly, but still altered. QM was created as a way to
>describe that which we would be incapable of deducing through observation
>because of the HUP.
You're thinking of Shroedinger, Erik. Heisenber said something quite
different; that it is the fact, not the observation, which is uncertain
(and therefore they both are). QM was created as a way to *explain*
this fact, because it is not the failure of our observation to be
certain, but the failure of what we are observing to be observable (not
because it is small, but simply because it is uncertain, and the
truthfulness of it continues to be uncertain, even after we open
Shroedinger's box and reduce the wave fronts to a dead cat. What "dead"
means, you see, is what is uncertain, not whether cyanide causes death.
Shroedinger's cat was a purposefully gedanken experiment, used to
illustrate how the word "is" breaks down in the real world (the one of
quantum uncertainty and cosmic relativity, not the one our language
deals with.) In the mundane, too-big-for-quantum,
too-slow-for-relativity, world, our language insists on stating that the
cat "is" dead, or "is" alive, when the facts of the matter are not in
keeping with our language. Shroedinger translated quantum mathematics
into "the cat 'is' 50% alive and 50% dead", to illustrate how the matter
is handled by theoretical physicists. Normal people would just say what
they always would have said, and be no less correct, whether talking
about a sub-atomic particle, a cat, or a planet. We say "we don't know
if it is alive or dead". It means the same thing, essentially.
But that's not Heisenburg's uncertainty. That is more a matter of not
knowing if the trigger mechanism is broken; you can only be sure by
opening the box, and then, of course, you've spoiled the experiment.
But there is nothing uncertain if we presume the trigger works, and it
does; then, it is a matter of *probability*, not uncertainty, whether
the cat "is" dead or alive.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:00 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>>> 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.
>
>That is not true. If you took 500 cats in boxes and lookes at them all at
>once, n would be dead and 500-n would be alive. You would have no way of
>predicting in an individual case whether the cat would be dead or alive,
>thus the observation does not stop it being random, it merely forces it
>in to a random (but observable) state.
Another good one, I think. I imagine there are probably many people
like Erik, who confabulate Shroedinger's cat and Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:01 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dlg7a$jbb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 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.
>>
>> That is not true. If you took 500 cats in boxes and lookes at them all at
>> once, n would be dead and 500-n would be alive. You would have no way of
>> predicting in an individual case whether the cat would be dead or alive,
>> thus the observation does not stop it being random, it merely forces it
>> in to a random (but observable) state.
>
>If you take a random number, then modify it, it's no longer random.
Well, there's the rub, see. You're wrong. Ever hear of the GIGO
principle? If it is random going in, it is no less random at all coming
out. The modification's aren't random, but that can't stop the result
from being random unless the input is non-random.
>If I
>generate the random number 8 [...]
You've spoiled your experiment, see. It is obvious that 8 was intended
to be arbitrary, but it is certainly not random. The difference is
important, believe it or not. The human brain is, far more than
software, entirely incapable of generating a random number. With
software, you can at least fake it, and come up with quasi-random
numbers. But you CHOSE 8, so obviously it is neither random
(mathematically unpredictable) nor arbitrary (without reason, without a
comprehensible explanation for why it was chosen).
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:02 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 21:20:40
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>>>OK, why are you using a Windows application (which you despise?) instead
>>>>>of a Linux equivalent (which you think is wonderful?).
>>>>
>>>> It's more convenient to use Windows than to avoid Windows, and I already
>>>> paid for it (and Agent) long ago. That doesn't make it reliable or
>>>> stable.
>>>
>>>But if Windows is _so_ bad, why use it at all? If you think it's "monopoly
>>>crapware" surely you cannot even touch it?
>>>
>>>Either that, or you're a hypocrit.
>>
>> Or maybe you just don't seem to have the foggiest clue what is meant by
>> "monopoly crapware". You seem to easily ignore the 'm' word, and its
>> rather obvious that it answers your question.
>>
>> So I guess you're just being lame.
>
>You trying to fit me into a square hole again? You still trying to fit me
>into your dogma again?
I'm telling you you're lame because you're lame. Going off on how I'm
trying to pigeon-hole you is just being lame, I'm afraid.
>I don't see the connection between my understanding what monopoly crapware
>means and why you insist on using it, despite calling it "monopoly
>crapware".
Now I "insist on using it"? Because I don't spend time and effort
migrating all my habits and data, to satisfy your stupid and obviously
ridiculous notion that I've no right to criticize monopoly crapware if
I'm using it, now I'm "insisting on using it"?
You invent new levels of lame, man.
>I think the answer is very simple. You're a hypocrit, plain and
>simple. You don't like it when someone calls you on it, so you try to
>deflect it by wittering on about the meaning of "monopoly crapware". Shame
>on you!
Shame will get you nowhere, meathead. I don't get insulted in general;
I certainly don't feel shame on any random lamer's say-so.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:03 GMT
Said Roy Culley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001 00:56:32
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>> >Why aren't you using PAN instead of Agent?
>>>
>>> Because I use Agent, not PAN. Guffaw.
>>
>> OK, why are you using a Windows application (which you despise?) instead
>> of a Linux equivalent (which you think is wonderful?).
>
>Why so few people use knews (nothing to do with kde) I don't know. Has all
>the features a GUI newsreader needs including threading and flexible kill
>filing using regex's. And it's free of course. :-)
knews, huh? What's the release at? Are you sure it doesn't expect me
to grab a mouse every time I turn around? Sounds like something I'll
check out, when I do finally migrate off the monopoly crapware.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:03 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 21:17:42
>[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.
Small wonder. I'll bet it keeps you pretty busy, too!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:11:04 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
>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.
I think OEMs are getting lots of pressure from Microsoft to abandon 98,
although none of their customers, nor the OEMs themselves, see any
reason to double or triple (at least) how much they pay for an OS, just
because MS has monopoly power and so can raise prices substantially
above competitive levels and maintain them indefinitely.
An honest observer would count no less that three attempts, announced in
the press, by MS to accomplish this, with no interest whatsoever from
either OEMs or customers to go along with it, and a rather obvious
amount of resistance, in fact. But monopoly power is monopoly power;
you can't just wish it away.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
