Linux-Advocacy Digest #40, Volume #35 Fri, 8 Jun 01 00:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Laugh, it's hilarious. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Laugh, it's hilarious. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Dan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:36 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:39:00
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:56:28 +0200, Mart van de Wege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:37:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In theory, an ISP could run thousands of hosts on one mainframe. Such
>>>> an ISP would go out of business, though.
>
>>> Have you actually calculated the costs?
>
>>Sorry to butt in halfway through the thread, Bob, but that is exactly
>>what Telia, originally the Swedish Telco and now the biggest ISP in
>>Scandinavia is doing.
>
>Yes, I saw the announcement from IBM. Apparently Max didn't, or he thinks
>they are going to go out of business.
AFAIK, they aren't in business to begin with. This is a
government-funded issue of national infrastructure, I think.
>I was just trying to help him see how
>it might be cost-effective if done on a large enough scale.
The example hasn't done so. Not even if Telia is now a private
corporation. I never said it was impossible, just not cost-effective.
I also don't think it is a very technically beneficial design.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:37 GMT
Said Christopher L. Estep in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 30 May 2001 19:11:23 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> Besides, you claimed that Windows is ubiquitous because it is the
>better
>> >> O/S. If NT/2K is better than 9x, why is not everybody using that than?
>>
>> >Price, Win2K cost more than 9x.
>> >NT is also aimed more at bussiness, and there are some problems with
>> >compatability with some software.
>> >And NT's drivers can be a lot of hassle.
>> >
>> >But I agree with you, everyone who uses a 9x should stop and use an NT
>based
>> >product.
>>
>> Which will cost them how much? They'll have to fork out for: NT, a
>> bigger hard disk probably, more RAM, a faster processor just to make
>> it all work. Or, they could just get linux, spending absolutely
>> NOTHING.
>
>Bigger hard drive?
>Hmmm...the typical replacement hard drive for *desktops* is 40 GB. Windows
>2000 *Advanced Server*, with all bells and whistles, will use maybe
>one-tenth of that (about *four* gigabytes). Such a drive costs maybe $150
>US today, at worst.
>
>More RAM?
>
>Let's see...I bought 512 MB of PC-133 SDRAM for less than $200 US in
>March...and since then prices have *dropped*.
>
>Faster CPU?
>
>1 GHz P-III (overkill for not only desktops, but most servers) cost me $290
>US (again, March 2001)...it's almost *half* that today.
>
>If you have a P-II, Celeron or Athlon processor, 128 MB of RAM or more, and
>1 GB of free disk space, you could *easily* run Windows 2000 Professional
>today.
>
>Linux is *only* free if you download it. Books that include Linux (often an
>older out-of-date version) still cost (about 1/3 that of a Windwos 98 SE or
>ME upgrade).
>
>You will still need the hard drive space for Linux (unless you are going to
>blank Windows altogether, which no newbie would do), and a typical distro
>will *easily* eat as much space (if not more) as Windows 2000 *Server* (and
>*more* than 2000 Professional).
>
>Here's a cold fact from *personal* experience: I recently upgraded at work
>to Windows 2000 Pro SP1 (from NT 4 SP 5). I subject it to loads that would
>(and *did*) bring NT 4 to its *knees*. Daily. And the OS didn't even
>quiver.
>
>The hardware? A P-III 450 with 128 MB of RAM. (As you now know, *less* than
>my home system.)
>
>Most users now have more CPU power at home (where they usually run 9x or ME)
>than they do at the office (where they usually run NT or 2000 Professional).
>
>My own desktop isn't even *leading edge* today for *home* use.
>
>And on the subject of pricing, I agree, Microsoft has seriously screwed up.
>I have, in fact, been taking them to task for it (and will continue to do
>so).
Hard drive space for bloatware: $150
RAM for crapware: $200
CPU for the next version: $290
Monopoly crapware: Priceless.
Bill Gates. He's everywhere you want to be.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:39 GMT
Said Christopher L. Estep in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 30 May 2001 02:21:30 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > VBScripts end up being executables which only run with as much
>> >> > or less privilege than the user.
>> >> >
>> >> > How is this different from perl scripts on Unix?
>> >>
>> >> Because Perl scripts can't touch "normal" users' files. It's obvious:
>> >> Windows 98 is a wide-open system, and most unices are not. The only
>way
>> >> to delete users' files on a unix system is if someone compromised the
>> >> system, and put a rogue Perl script where it shouldn't be.
>> >
>> >We, well I wasn't at least, talking about Win9x. Win9x is a toy OS and
>> >sucks. NT/2K are different.
>> >
>>
>> What's the market share of NT/2K?
>> How many viri are writtten specifically for 2K?
>>
>> Besides, you claimed that Windows is ubiquitous because it is the better
>> O/S. If NT/2K is better than 9x, why is not everybody using that than?
>
>Simple: OS price. If NT or 2000 were available for the price of 9x, 9x
>would die.
Hmmm. I wonder if Microsoft knows that. They seem to be having some
problem getting people to "migrate". You think this might have
something to do with it?
>People don't run 9x because they *want* to.
That's for damn sure.
>They run it because it runs all their apps for a decent price.
No, it runs all their apps at the lowest price. It is anything but
decent. Even if XP were priced at WinDOS levels, it would be
overpriced. But less overpriced. (And still very profitable, if MS had
any intention of acting competitively.)
>If a user's needs include security (and they can afford it) they go with
>NT/2000 (witness the increase in *non-networked* Windows 2000 users and home
>Windows 2000 Professional users).
What increase?
>Windows XP will be available in both Home and Professional Editions, based
>on the superior codebase of Windows 2000 Professional, *not* the junk of
>9x/ME.
WinDOS is evidence enough that neither Microsoft nor sock puppets could
possibly recognize a 'superior codebase'. W2K didn't prove otherwise,
much to Microsoft's chagrin (their sales figures for 2K have been
*extremely* embarrassing); only a fool would consider XP to be any
different.
>And, quite bluntly, I have been shouting that Microsoft should simply *kill*
>the Home Edition of XP and drop Professional's price to that of 9x.
How's that working for ya?
>I have, in fact, been recommending Windows 2000 Professional for home use
>since it shipped.
You don't seem to realize there is no difference in the codebase of the
OS. You're just recommending that home users pay three times as much
(or more) for an OS. I'll bet MS loves that, but how do the home users
feel?
>And the saame recommendation goes for Windows XP Profgessional when *it*
>ships.
I think at this point it is more like "if" it does ship. MS is running
out of time; that court decision isn't going to wait forever.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:40 GMT
Said Stephen Edwards in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 05 Jun 2001
>Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their
>mouths told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GreyCloud) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Stephen Edwards wrote:
>>>
>>> Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their
>>> mouths told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GreyCloud) wrote in
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> >Jan Johanson wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >> et. ..
>>> >> > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>>> >> > > Besides, If you had the kind of experience with UNIX
>>> >> > > that you seem to pretend to have, you'd understand
>>> >> > > why the Linux kernel is completely substandard.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Then you better tell the CEO of IBM that Linux is substandard
>>> >> > because they just dumped an awful lot of money into getting linux
>>> >> > to run on their mainframes. :-)
>>> >>
>>> >> Oh, I see, so Linux=good because a lot of money was spent modifying
>>> >> it to run on some once-upon-a-time-evil-empire's hardware?
>>> >>
>>> >> So, the $2 billion in R&D MS spends yearly on Windows, being
>>> >> greater than the <$1 billion IBM has spent pretty much helps
>>> >> confirm that Windows>Linux - is that what you meant?
>>> >
>>> >Not at all. IBM is more efficient than microsoft and I know quite a
>>> >few of their employees... gawd I sure wouldn't want to get under an
>>> >MRI made by Microsoft!
>>>
>>> Begging your pardon, but where did you ever get
>>> the idea that a coporate organization with IBM's
>>> overhead is "more efficient" than Microsoft.
>
>>Easy, first they are taking a product (linux) and then refining for the
>>mainframes instead of taking it from the ground up... I consider that
>>very efficient.
>
>No, that's not efficiency. Assuming that the scenario
>which you are describing is true, it's awfully similar
>to why they used an open architecture for their original
>IBM PC. They know that it would take years if they were
>to do it right, so they've decided to do it quickly
>instead.
Yea; you get the point? IBM is *still* making money selling PCs. Do
you think that would be the case had they used a proprietary design?
>In other words, they are taking jagged shortcuts to
>avoid their own overhead. That is NOT efficiency.
Of course it is. You are measuring efficiency wrong. That which finds
reward in a capitalist free market is that which is efficient. That is
why we *have* capitalist free markets.
>>> Microsoft is significantly smaller (infrastructure-
>>> wise) than IBM, and I cannot see how this is possible
>>> in any way.
>>
>>Note that many writers for various publications take note in the premise
>>that microsoft products "Weren't invented here". No real inside
>>innovations. Also the fact that IBM makes more than just computers
>>which in turn makes it a larger company.
>
>Irrelevant, and not necessarily completely factual.
I'll go along with you there, but it does seem to beg the question of
why you brought it up, don't you think?
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:41 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:00:13
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:44:43 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>
>> >Proof: Windows can run GUI as well as CLI, and both have facilities that
>> >allow you to thoroughly hose your filesystem.
>>
>> Yes, but Windows' CLI is a piece of crippled shite.
>
>Which you haven't qualified with examples yet.
Windows CLI is an unqualified piece of crippled shite.
>Windows GUI is as good or as
>bad as the tools you run in it.
Then it isn't any good, obviously.
>Bash is almost completely useless without
>all the little tools and utils that you need to run it, same applies to
>cmd.exe
Hardly. Bash is enormously more capable than command.com or cmd.exe.
Always has been, always. You sound as stupid as Chad Myers when you say
something like this.
Sure, the large expanse of conventional Unix tools are important. But
then, it isn't like cmd.exe is any different.
>Give me an example of how it's crippled?
No korne, bourne, OR c shell syntax support. It finally has tab
completion, but it still fucks up how more should work. No c shell
"bang" history syntax support, either.
--
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.aol-sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Laugh, it's hilarious.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:42 GMT
Said flatfish+++ in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 07 Jun 2001 11:56:16
>On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:06:55 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.jokeaday.com/7letters.shtml
>>
>>It's on a mailing list I'm subscribe to.
>>The post-master sent an email about AOL.EXE being a virus, and urge people
>>to delete it, and post some of the replies in the above URL.
>>
>>Here are a couple of the most amusing replies:
>>
>>"I beleive that this is a hoax. Isn't AOL.exe a vital component to the
>>window's operating system? "
>>
>>"No!! Any file ending in .EXE is a necessary file to your computer. Wherever
>>you got that information they're wrong. You need that file. I have learned
>>this the wrong way. Don't delete any file ending in .EXE Please pass this on
>>to everybody."
>
>And the Linvocates expect these people to edit config files and run
>Linux?
No, they expect their OEMs to do so; the users can learn to do it
whenever they're ready (beats learning why your OS crashed again). The
user has no need to be concerned or to listen to random people saying
that some component is a virus. If the monopoly crapware's problems and
bad design hadn't caused these people to become so paranoid, they would
have had some reason to wonder why the guy on the internet was telling
them to su to root so they could delete a file to "protect themselves"
from a vague threat.
>Unfortunately the above is the sorry level of computer knowledge out
>there in the world. Just take a wander past the computers in Walmart
>and listen to the questions people are asking the sales staff.
Would you admit that the average consumer is more knowledgeable than
they were five or ten years ago? People learn, if you give them
something to learn. MS has been reticent to allow consumers to become
informed users, as it makes their shenanigans and the fact their
products are crapware all the more apparent, and so users have had
little they can learn. The current discussion is an example, in fact,
of the kind of thing they've been able to learn, despite the "blanket of
ignorance" that MS would like to smother them with.
>ie: This machine comes with 40 gigabytes of memory right?
No, that is 'hard drive space'. Memory is "ram". It isn't very
complicated, unless you try to make it hard. That is the Microsoft way,
to try to make it hard, to try to make it as complex as possible (but
easy to buy).
Wintrolls pretend that the Unix/Linux way is to make things hard, but
really it is just to be honest (computers are complex things). Sure,
things could be simpler, but they could be more efficient, too, and
ignorance is a passing thing. Given the fact that no consumer wants to
be ignorant of what they are buying, but want it to "keep up" with them
as they learn even more, it is certainly not the consumer's fault that
modern computing is such a shabby dysfunctional mess.
As evidenced by the fact that you hear all those people asking all those
silly questions like the above; people would *like* computers to make
sense. Treating innocent but naive questions as if they were proof of
stupidity rather than ignorance is just begging the question, I think.
As if it didn't make sense because it was complex, when in reality it
doesn't make sense simply because it has never been explained well. A
line I stole from one of my wife's college professors: there are no
stupid questions, only sarcastic answers.
BTW, flatfish/claire. I wanted to mention that I noticed your last few
posts have been surprisingly rational, even downright reasonable. In
tribute to that, I don't specifically include you in the group
'Wintrolls' as used in this post. I appreciate the improvement you've
made; I just wanted you to know that, and that I noticed your effort.
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.aol-sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Laugh, it's hilarious.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:43 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 07 Jun 2001
>flatfish+++ wrote:
[...]
>> ie: This machine comes with 40 gigabytes of memory right?
>
>On the other hand, in the auto section of Walmart you'll hear more
>intelligent questions. Why is that?
Well put. Why *is* that?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: 7 Jun 2001 23:06:05 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> More micro$oft "customer service":
>
> http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
Sounds like a nice idea to me, and doesn't "change Web pages" as the
(paranoid?) author of the article claims.
Dan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
