Linux-Advocacy Digest #980, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications ("wgaf")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Chicken and egg problem ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (pip)
Re: UI Importance ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Peter da Silva)
Re: UI Importance ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Kernel comparisions (Bob Hauck)
A Song for Aaron (chrisv)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (Bob Hauck)
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe (chrisv)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows advocate of the year. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Mart van de Wege")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:23:51 +0200
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > Most drivers has this capability, although I understand that Hurd deals
with
> > it, to some point.s
>
> It would be interesting to find out how. At the end of the day - drivers
> must be run in kernel space? And therefore have access to every part of
> memory to mess up things? Perhaps the HURD somehow arbitrates the device
> driver requests and only acts on them if they can be "validated" (as
> it's a microkernel and the actual kernel can act as a message hub) ?
>
> Anyone know ?
I believe that it can be done this way.
Or by putting the drivers on ring 2 on x86.
I would certainly like someone more knowledgable to add some techincal stuff
about it here.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:25:41 +0200
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > IIRC, the GDI got into the kernel space because of speed issues.
>
> yes :) So did the tux webserver - and I think that this is _wrong_ also
> :)
Actually, this I do support.
HTTP is a very simple protocol, so you can have a code that is as bug free
as you can get. So for static content on an image server, that does make
sense.
> btw interestingly enough there is much debate as to apache v tux and
> some interesting benchamrks showed that there is only _marginal
> difference_ (at first they showed that apache was *better*). Many
> threads on this in Linux Kernel Mailing List fyi.
I'll certainly check on that later.
Did they find the reason for this?
What about the httpd in 2.4?
------------------------------
From: "wgaf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:40:43 GMT
"Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fh60f$sim$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If the appeals court in the DOJ suit sides with Microsoft (and most
> people think they will), the incessant leveraging of Windows will not
> only continue but get much worse. Get those credit cards ready folks.
You make it sound like there's no alternative vendors, which is not true.
> Protect Your Rights -- Fight UCITA
That's a fight everyone should participate....
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: 5 Jun 2001 12:41:54 GMT
Yet another anonymous Wintroll currently claiming to be Stuart Fox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part:
:> M$ cares about PROFITS not USERS. Of course it will listen to some
:> extent to it's users, but only to keep them from the alternatives.
:> Anything more is a waste of money.
:>
: Have you thought about where their profit comes from? That's right, their
: users. If they don't keep them happy, they'll lose them.
Or, if that doesn't work, they'll commit fraud or any other crime
necessary in order to make sure that consumers have no choice.
See the Findings of Fact.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicken and egg problem
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:41:21 +0200
"Gerald Meazell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I didn't want to start a thread about why OS/2 failed to take the market.
That
> is a discussion that has been beaten to death (although it might be
instructive
> to Linux advocates). My point was that the article in question asserted
that
> all you needed to succeed from an OS standpoint was backward compatibility
> with the majority of apps. If that was true, OS/2 would have taken the
market.
> It didn't so I assert that the article has a flawed premise. If the
premise is
> flawed, does the article have any merit?
Just providing backward compatability doesn't mean anything.
You have to lure the users to your platform.
Not giving backward compatability is a fence they will either trip or climb
over.
Giving backward compatability is nice, but what was the *killer app* of
OS/2? What was the *reason* to move?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:55:33 GMT
On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:24:19 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, Unix is easy to port to new hardware, but
> Unix apps are often not easy to port to other
> operating systems.
>
> What's so difficult to understand about that?
Nothing, but I'm not clear on what's different about Unix in that
regard. Are you saying that Windows or Mac apps are easier to port to
another OS? I doubt that very much.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:56:25 GMT
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:06:31 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that were true, then NT couldn't have been ported to PPC which is big
> endian. MIPS can be either big or little endian, and Alpha was little
> endian.
All of those can run in either mode.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:59:50 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> I'll certainly check on that later.
> Did they find the reason for this?
> What about the httpd in 2.4?
The thread was too long and boring for something that could be done
quite well in userspace, so I am afraid I only got the jist of this. The
HTML archives should provide more info if you are interested. I can't
see many reasons for kernel space inclusion. Even if speed is an issue,
it is marginal and I would prefer to be safe rather than sorry. If there
is a large commercial web server, then they would employ many hosts and
a good system of load balancing so that speed AND reliability is NOT an
issue. But of course for those who think differently Linux allows you to
do this. I am not sure if you will have this CHOICE under the windows
system, and that is where I would have an issue.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:59:45 +0100
>> >> That doesn't sort them by content.
>> >
>> > You can tell it to do so.
>>
>> Content ?!
>>
>> But that involves knowing what is in the images. I don't think
>> computers are powerful enough to sort 1000 images by content yet.
>
> It can sort them by size (demintions of the picture). Explorer crash on
> my computer trying to do it for 1000s of images, but it is still beta.
ls can sort them by size, seeing as size is related to dimensions.
However, I think the only soultion on either system is ot sue a direcroty
or two :-)
> To get it to sort it by anything more than that (all the pictures with a
> dog in it), you will have to do a *lot* of research, both into AI and
> image recogniztion.
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: 5 Jun 2001 12:44:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter da Silva wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Peter da Silva wrote:
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > If you want a custom car, you go to a custom car dealer. If you want a
> > > > > mass market car, but _without_ a transmission because you want to
> > > > > install your own special one, do you honestly expect to be able to go to
> > > > > a mass market auto dealer and pay _less_ for that car?
> > > > AOOOGAH AOOOOGAH! BAD ANALOGY WARNING! BAD ANALOGY WARNING!
> > > Only for the too literal-minded. What manufactered commodity item would
> > > make a better analogy, and why?
> > A modular one, of course. Removing the transmission from a car is expensive,
> > and they're unlikely to sell it to someone else. Software can be erased with
> > a moment's work, and licenses are fungible.
> Who said anything about _removing_ a transmission?
I don't know any computer vendor outside of small screwdriver shops that
take the JIT concept all the way to the shop floor.
If you want a real-world analogy, then you have to pay attention to real-world
issues.
> > Bass boat and outboard motor would be about right.
> I don't think so. Sure, it's easy to format a hard drive and "remove"
> the OS, but what does the dealer gain from it?
A licensed copy of the OS.
Oh, Microsoft doesn't let you do that? Well, isn't that the point?
It's like buying a bass boat with the outboard motor welded on, and no option
to install a bigger one, or one with a propellor cage because you go fishing
in the Atchafalaya... except by buying an extra motor mount and sticking it
next to the one that's already there.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:01:59 +0100
>> Secondly, by using aliases, I have created a "safe" way of deleting
>> files (with the rm command in Linux). It now moves files to a trash
>> directory, from where all files older then 3 months gets permenantly
>> deleted, using a cron job.
>
> In other works, you've re-created the Recycle Bin. :-D
>
> What do you mean, though, using aliases?
The shell picks up on rm, so that instead of calling the rm program, it
simply moves the file to the trash directory.
Something like
function rm()
{
mv $* ~/.trash/
}
would be a very simplistic version in BASH.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:04:22 +0100
>> > But the end result (the protocol, aka binary) would still be the
>> > same.
>>
>> I don't follow. I thought the binary was the executable program, which
>> would be utterly different. Also, protocols can be plain text.
>
> I gave an example, of two source codes that produce the same binary. And
> I said that in this case, you can be pretty sure that they look very
> much alike.
>
> If you've a client/server that can participate in the GPL protocol, then
> they implement the GPL protocol. Therefor, you have a good chance that
> they would fall under the GPL.
Hmm.
I suppose we could debate this endlessly, but the honest answer is tha i
don't know. I suppose you'd have to contach RMS or a lawyer to find out.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:16:56 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>now....kindly REFRAIN from all acts which make you a walking public
>health threat, and DISCOURAGE everyone else from same.
>
Methinks he doth protest too much!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:22:04 GMT
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:43:14 GMT, Stephen Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their mouths
> >He claims it periodically. I don't think anyone believes him anymore. He
> >could have just altered the headers for one post to prove his point, but
> >nope.
>
> That would have required intelligence in order
> for him to think of doing that, I suppose.
Someone _challenged_ him to do that. His response was that he wouldn't
jump on command.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel comparisions
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:25:19 GMT
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:33:28 +1200, Stuart Fox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They can actually, and have done since 3.5 I believe. C: is a symbolic link
> to \\device\harddisk0 (usually). WinObj from http://www.sysinternals.com
> will show you the Symbolic links used by the system. Don't confuse - "don't
> use commonly" with "don't use at all", the functionality is there, just not
> widely used.
It would get a lot more use if there were user-level tools provided to
deal with them.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A Song for Aaron
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:33:31 GMT
You're a mean one, Mr. Kook.
You really are a heel.
You're as cuddly as a cactus,
You're as charming as an eel.
Mr. Kook,
You're a bad banana
With a greasy black peel.
You're a monster, Mr. Kook.
Your heart's an empty hole.
Your brain is full of spiders,
You've got garlic in your soul.
Mr. Kook.
I wouldn't touch you, with a
thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole.
You're a vile one, Mr. Kook.
You have termites in your smile.
You have all the tender sweetness
Of a seasick crocodile.
Mr. Kook.
Given the choice between the two of you
I'd take the seasick crocodile.
You're a rotter, Mr. Kook.
You're the king of sinful sots.
Your heart's a dead tomato splot
With moldy purple spots,
Mr. Kook.
Your soul is an appalling dump heap overflowing
with the most disgraceful assortment of
rubbish imaginable,
Mangled up in tangled up knots.
You nauseate me, Mr. Kook.
With a nauseaus super-naus.
You're a crooked jerky jockey
And you drive a crooked horse.
Mr. Kook.
You're a three decker saurkraut and
Toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce.
You're a foul one, Mr. Kook.
You're a nasty, wasty skunk.
Your heart is full of unwashed socks
Your soul is full of gunk.
Mr. Kook.
The three words that best describe you,
are, and I quote: "Stink. Stank. Stunk."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:34:08 GMT
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:10:17 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would the kernel BSOD just because the GUI crash? It should restart it,
> not stop.
Good question. Sounds ungood to me.
> Beside, I understand that Win2K2 can boot without GUI.
Can it? Or do they just include a null display driver like with NT
embedded?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:36:56 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Wrong again, Kook. It was you claimed you didn't understand my
>> meaning because I wasn't literal enough, when in fact my meaning was
>> quite clear. How many times must you lose to me? (I know, you never
>> have, right? LOL!)
>
>Confusing the audience with Nonsense and Double-talk is not victory.
This is why you lose. Stop spouting nonsense and double-talk.
>Hope that helps.
Yes, victory is sweet!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:37:36 GMT
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:43:59 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That depend, if MS standartise .NET, then you could write a client to any
> platform.
It is highly doubtful that MS will write a .NET client for Linux. It is
nearly as doubtful that they will publish enough of a spec for a third
party to make a client that is 100% compatible with the Windows one.
On top of that, it is doubtful that developers will avoid the tempation
to use unmanaged code to begin with.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:39:13 GMT
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:36:51 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we should have a Wincvocate of the year nominated (it makes a
> change from nominating trolls).
>
> I would like to nominate Ayende Rahien.
Seconded. Honorable mention to Erik F.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:45:19 +0200
In article <9ffgvh$cbr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
>
>> As soon as you migrate core
>> funcionality into the plugin, then the dreaded virality clause sets in.
>> VirtualDub is a nice example. The company distributing it wrapped it in
>> a DLL and GPL'ed the DLL. Then distributed the DLL with their
>> proprietary program, and advertised the features of VirtualDub (in the
>> GPL'ed DLL remember) as core functionality of the program. *This*
>> invoked the GPL on their proprietary software, and as they would not
>> open it, constituted a GPL violation.
>
> Qouting the GPL:
> "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works"
>
> Will a COM object fit the bill here?
> It's certainly a seperated work.
> And the UI for this COM is a seperate work as well.
<snip more>
That's just it. If the COM object in question is generic, ie it offers
services to more than one program, it is not inextricably tied to the one
program, then it falls under the "separate works" clause.
This is however (with my very limited knowledge of COM, ie almost none)
very hard to determine, so you are right, the grey area becomes very
large when distributed applications come into view (COM, CORBA, SOAP
etc). The FSF has already acknowledged that and will try to adress this
in the GPL v3, AFAIK.
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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
