Linux-Advocacy Digest #107, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Charlie
Ebert)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Bob Hauck)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Sack of shit -c (Charlie Ebert)
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Test your Brain! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: More funny stuff. (mlw)
Re: Test your Brain! (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:40:45 GMT
In article <akLU6.13628$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:10:38 +1000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >my point was a windows install is far less intrusive when it comes to what
>> >hardware info the
>> >user needs to know to get a working system.
>>
>> That would explain why in windows you need a video card driver to get
>> out of 640x480x4, whereas in Linux it goes up to the maximum
>> resolution/colour with no problems.
>
>That is, if your driver is present, which most of the time it's not.
>And only if the install program sets ther resolution for you, which,
>from my experience, it rarely does this.
>
>Windows can always manage to get 640x480x8 no matter what card you've
>got, but X will either not start or give you 320x240x2 or x8 sometimes
>if it can't figure out your card.
>
>BeOS had a similar problem where if it couldn't figure out your card,
>it would default to some strange resolution in black and white.
>
>Why is it so difficult to get 640x480x8? Windows has always been
>able to do this regardless of card since Win95, I have yet to see
>an OS that can get this basic level without drivers.
>
>-c
>
Chad,
You are totally full of shit. It's absolutely comming out of your
fucking ears! How incredible! What new levels of blather will
you spew across planet earth in the name of a big fat monopoly?
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:43:44 GMT
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:32 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 19:43:45
> >On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:34 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:33:51
> >> >On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:34 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:45:03
> >> >> >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. It is not an efficient way to
> >> >> >> spend money, that's all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Have you actually calculated the costs?
> >> >>
> >> >> No, but I presume that ISPs have.
> >> >
> >> >So, you haven't calculated the costs, and you don't know what
> >> >conclusion ISP's who have done so have come to.
> >>
> >> Sure I do. Their conclusions, if they have considered the matter, were
> >> obviously that mainframes were not cost-effective platforms. This is
> >> conclusively proven by the dearth of ISPs implementing mainframes.
> >
> >Max, your logic is mistaken. That few ISP's have implmented mainframes
> >does not prove that they aren't cost effective.
> You are correct, but that is why I do not believe I am mistaken. It
> does say nothing about the reasons, you are right.
Thank you.
> >There are, in fact, lots of non-economic reasons that have prevented
> >mainframes from being used to support virtual hosts, the largest being
> >software. As in, there wasn't much, and what there was was alien to
> >the customer base.
>
> Okay. What gave you the impression that this is not a fiscal issue,
> when considering if you want to buy a mainframe?
Well, shit, if you want to look at it that broadly then *everything* is
a "fiscal issue".
> I think you are projecting, but then, maybe you were just being dumb and
> I pointed it out?
Yeah, that's it. We're all dumb except you.
> > I don't agree that Telia is doing because they like to waste money.
>
> "Like to waste money"? You're at risk of being called dumb again.
> I don't agree with that, either. Why are you suggesting I said it when I
> didn't?
You said that they were a government entity and didn't have to worry
about fiscal restraint, implying thta they did not have to use a cost
effective solution because of, presumably, a government subsidy.
Sounds like "wasting money" to me. Did I misinterpret your statement?
> >Actually, I did. I did not make a lifetime project out of it, but I did
> >bother to look up how much Telia spent on the mainframe and how many
> >virtual hosts it was going to run. The numbers look reasonable on the
> >face of it.
>
> Wow. Bob's got a spreadsheet that looks good; let's invest several
> hundreds of millions of dollars?
A mainframe does not cost a hundred million, or even ten million. I am
also not claiming that my numbers are definitive or asking anyone to
invest based on them. My purpose is merely to show that it is
_possible_ that using a mainframe for ISP tasks might be cost effective.
Further study would be needed before spending the money, of course.
> >Ok, what am I missing? What ISP requirements does the mainframe
> >solution not fulfill?
>
> Flexibility is the word that fits best, in many scenarios of why a
> mainframe is not a good choice.
Ok, you finally have listed an actual reason. I don't know enough about
mainframes to argue that they are more or less flexible than the 1U
server approach. I suspect that they are better in some ways and not as
good in others and that potential users would have to include this in
their evaluation.
I do know enough about distributed computing to know that the great
weakness of that approach is administration. We still don't have very
good tools and the ones we do have are very expensive. This must be
balanced against the benefits of flexibility.
> Hell; just the business model of the 'ISP' itself is not stable enough
> to make such a huge capital investment ever pay off.
That may well be true. I've long said that $9.95/month for dialup can't
be profitable, and now we see them raising the price or going out of
business. I think, though, that the model of "web hosting" can be made
to work if it is integrated with other kinds of outsourcing.
> You're going to be playing catch-up with the industry in
> six months, as they take advantage of development and you desperately
> try to update your million-hosts-on-one-big-box software,
Ah, that's the beauty of the "Linux in a virtual machine" approach. You
will be using the _same_ software as the rest of the industry. You will
be able to run the latest Apache, latest Java, latest PHP, latest MySQL,
and so on.
> It is just a silly idea.
Aren't you the one who was supporting Greycloud and his odd notions
about radio waves on the basis of it being a bad idea to reject things
out of hand just because they conflict with dogma? Perhaps this idea
conflicts with _your_ dogma.
> >How does having a hundred minicomputers or a
> >thousand PC's fulfill these requirements better?
>
> You can buy fifty minicomputers; you can't buy half a mainframe.
Actually, I think you can effectively buy "half a mainframe". I'm no
expert, but I'm told that you can start small and then add cpu's and
storage and IO channels as needed. Sure, your average mom & pop outfit
can't afford the entry price, but that's not who I'm talking about
here. I'm talking about Earthlink, Digex, Rackspace, companies like
that.
> You don't understand. You have to come up with some compelling reason
> it is suitable, before there is any reason at all for a more elaborate
> explanation. At the very least, it is an unproven approach.
Yes, it is an unproven approach. It does appear to have some potential
merit though. IBM has found a customer who they hope proves the
approach. That someone might want to try this out does not require
that they are off their rocker or unknowledgeable about either
technology or business. There are technical and business reasons why
it might work and might make sense. That's all I've been saying.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:43:45 GMT
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 18:11:30 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm thinking that there has got to be a way to do this with NT, what
> > with ACL's and all. Any pointers from the Winvocates?
>
> Strange, it's very easy.
> Okay, here is how do to it:
>
> cacls *.* /t /p Everyone:W
>
> This should turn all the files (and all sub directirues) to write only.
Ok, but some people do need to read them via a share, so what we'd
really want to do is make it write-only to the anonymous ftp user and
readable to everyone else. Coupled with the anonymous ftp user ID that
you posted further in the thread, I think I see how to do this. Thanks.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:45:20 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > In any case, if you believe you need control
> > of the exact appearance of the page, you
> > should not be using HTML at all- it does
> > not give you that control. Your page's
> > appearance will depend heavily on the
> > browser that renders it.
>
> It figures you would cchampoion micro$ofts changing the appearnce of
> other people's pages.
I like to take on the really easy ones. :D
And *this* anti-MS argument is just
to tempting to pass up.
>Micro$of has no right to change the prsentation of
> someone else's page. NONE.
Does this mean IE is only allowed to
display the source of the page, and not
a rendered ('changed') version of it?
> > For instnace, if I use a text-only browser,
> > all those pretty blue underlines will vanish.
>
> How does that excuse micro$oft's willfully changing the visual
> presentation of someone els'se page?
It is okay to degrade a page's apperance in the
browser, but not okay to improve upon it?
> > Vandalism! :D
>
> Look.. the grinning moron is back.
Well, only he would call this vandalism,
you know. :D
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:46:03 GMT
In article <jlLU6.13629$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"JS \ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:08:02 -0500, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
>> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > >> wrote
>> > >> on Wed, 09 May 2001 11:45:50 GMT
>> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > >> >Steve Sheldon wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >[a lot of troll-shit snipped]
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Guys, Steve here is obviously trolling.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Yes, crashing out of X-Windows back to a console is pretty routine.
>> >
>> > Of course, that is an outright lie.
>>
>> Come on. It's usually the first experience people have with X Windows.
>> Watching X crash back to a console prompt that is.
>
>No, the FIRST experience is editing that rediculous config file and
>trying to get your drivers and the clock rate and the resolution and
>all the other parameters set correctly. Then, run startx and watch
>X crash and burn or lock the machine entirely, reboot, wait for
>fsck, then try it all again.
>
>-c
>
Well, Chad, You can be a knothead but seems like everytime we
enter this discussion about setting up Video cards you magically
forget to tell them all about XF86Setup which is a graphical
configuration tool for video and X. Almost any monkey can
use this tool to set up their video in less than 3 minutes.
Any monkey but you Chad. Your the kind of monkey which is seen
throwing small balls of shit at the passing crowds.
Someday's I think the folks at Ximian were thinking of you when
they came up with the monkey for their desktop symbol!
Your such an idiot it's funny.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:47:23 GMT
In article <JqLU6.13632$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 18:54:02 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> >It's pretty standard. Anyone who is a militant rabid defender
>> >> >of something is generally called a <term>inista.
>> >>
>> >> Erm, I haven't and I don't know anyone who's ever used such a term.
>> >> And wouldn't that mean Windows advocates would be known as
>> >> "shitOSinistas"?
>> >
>> >No, because people who use Windows are generally grounded and have
>> >nothing to prove or attack.
>>
>> No, I said Windows ADVOCATES. Learn to read you fucked up cunt.
>
>Heh, no call for that. What are you, 13 years old?
>
>*PLONK*
>
>-c
>
He may have gotten you there seeing how he's a 5 year old!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:47:44 GMT
"Josh McKee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:35:55 -0400, "Lance Togar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
[snip]
> I believe the arguement revolves around the fact that the web author
> is no longer in complete control over how their web content is viewed.
> One cannot merely avoid this issue by "not buying it" because it is
> the site visitors and not the site owner who will need to "not buy
> it".
OTOH, the web author never was in complete
control of this. No two web browsers are the
same about how they render things, you know.
HTML is just not the right tool to use if you
want that kind of control.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Sack of shit -c
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:50:33 GMT
How many people feel the -c man is a sack
of shit?
Sound OFF!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:57:53 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I like beer but for some strange reason I get a bad headache and feel sick
>>after just 1 pint so I only drink spirits - I can drink at least 10
>>vodka&cokes in one evening with no problems.
>
> Oh, you'll still have problems. You just won't care.
Remember, pity the man who doesn't drink. When he wakes uo in the
morning he knows that is the best he is going to feel all day. :-)
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:51:19 GMT
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > For instnace, if I use a text-only browser,
> > all those pretty blue underlines will vanish.
> >
> > Vandalism! :D
>
> It's not the change in the appearance of the web site that people find
> unacceptable, it's the change in its hyperlinked content.
This feature does not do that. Despite what some
articles are saying, these SmartTag things are not
hyperlinks, not unless you think anything that
involves and underline is a hyperlink.
OTOH, do you object to BabelFish? It
*realy does* change the content of a page-
it translates it. That *is* covered by the
copyright conventions unambiguously,
unlike this stuff.
Is BabelFish also evil?
> Let's say you're a paperboy or a newsstand. Do you have the right to
> insert your own pages into the newspapers and magazines you sell?
Don't they? I observe that some bookstores insert
advertisements for themselves in books. Sure, they
call them 'bookmarks'... :D
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Test your Brain!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:54:46 GMT
A guy backed me up in a hallway some weeks ago
and made the following proclaimation.
In the DP environment, if you can't spend
the money to solve the problem then the problem
wasn't worth solving.
This came from a highly respected person from
a another company who's worked in mainframes his
entire life.
What is wrong with this man's thinking!
Why don't you post what is wrong with his thinking
and perhaps a little story about your companies
situation and their policies on spending in the
IT arena.
My peronal feeling is that this kind of attitude
is rare and that most IT people DO NOT TEND to
act like nitwits with money.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:54:51 GMT
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Jim Polaski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> I wouldn't call HTML weak, I'd call it versatile. It's pretty cool that
> the same document can be displayed on wildly different applications
> suited to computers of different processing power.
You can call it versatile, but you can't pretend that
it gives you the control over the final representation
that you say MS is trying to take away.
You don't have that. You never did. MS may
wish to do so, as they wish to do all other
evil things for no reason, but they can't
take away what you do not have.
[snip]
> > > This is the nature of the net. It's also not all that different
> > > from Netscapes "What's related" function. The only difference is
> > > that the smart tags appear inline (it doesn't change your actual
> > > page, just provides a way to hover over words and get more
> > > information).
>
> That means it's adding information to the page ... information that may
> not be wanted by the page's creator. That's like adding sticky notes to
> every issue of Time magazine in a magazine rack to publish your own
> views on some event or advertisement. You're violating Time's freedom of
> press.
That's a rather odd way to look at it. I believe
some people are arguing that it violates Time's
*copyright*.
I'm not sure putting sticky-notes in a copy of
Time *does*, especially if it isn't done except
by consumer, and only at that consumers individual
discresion.
I dion't see what the freedom of the press has
to do with it. Time can publish copies without
sticky-notes no matter what you do, after all.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:56:57 GMT
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, it does. It adds new hyperlinks to the user's representation of the
> web page. Who controls what hyperlinks are added? Microsoft and whoever
> pays them enough money.
Actualy, this part isn't so. As is typical for MS, SmartTags
are a plug-in architecture. Anyone who wants to can write
new ones.
Paying MS is not required.
Though MS can and no doubt will provide
their own, included as standard.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More funny stuff.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:02:47 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6174/com_lite.htm
>
> Just to note, I did 8 myself. The keyboard is just as good as ever.
> But *damn* was it dirty.
>
> 6 & 9 & 11 are even more hilarious than the rest.
The irony about this sort of thing is, as the UI wonks debate what *is*
intuitive, they fail to realize that a computer simply is *not* intuitive.
The feeling that a computer should be as easy to use as, say, a Microwave is
meaningful on multiple levels. First, a computer "is" as easy to use as a
Microwave, because there is a computer in your Microwave, so by definition
*that* computer is as easy to use as a Microwave. The next level is that all
dedicated devices are, by nature of being dedicated, easier to use.
The argument that as computer should be as easy to use as some
semi-sophisticated single use device is total crap. A computer is an almost
infinitely complex device which can be configured to be practically anything.
The same basic computer hardware can be configured to perform the tasks
required from emulating a typewriter ranging all the way to a rocket guidance
system. Most people are amazed when they hear that a sofa also has a reclining
chair in it.
A computer can not be as easy to use as a Microwave, unless of course, it is a
Microwave.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Test your Brain!
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:13:31 -0400
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> A guy backed me up in a hallway some weeks ago
> and made the following proclaimation.
>
> In the DP environment, if you can't spend
> the money to solve the problem then the problem
> wasn't worth solving.
>
> This came from a highly respected person from
> a another company who's worked in mainframes his
> entire life.
>
> What is wrong with this man's thinking!
Actually, he is correct, but the cause and effect is ambiguous to the casual
listener. Think about it from a return on investment sense.
Evaluate the problem.
It costs $X to fix.
It costs $Y to do nothing.
(A) If $X > $Y, it need not be fixed.
(B) if abs($X - $Y) < $discretion, flip a coin.
(C) If $Y > $X, fix it.
In case (A), it would be hard to justify spending money that has a negative
return on investment, and no board of directors would OK the spending. This
situation could easily be expressed as "if you can't spend the money to solve
the problem, then the problem wasn't worth solving."
>
> Why don't you post what is wrong with his thinking
> and perhaps a little story about your companies
> situation and their policies on spending in the
> IT arena.
>
> My peronal feeling is that this kind of attitude
> is rare and that most IT people DO NOT TEND to
> act like nitwits with money.
He isn't being a nitwit, he is being a realist.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
