Linux-Advocacy Digest #421, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Feb 00 00:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Giving up on NT (ZnU)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (5X3)
Re: IE on UNIX (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (5X3)
Re: This is C.O.L.A here right? ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (5X3)
Windows Network Configuratin? (Bill Shine)
Re: IE on UNIX (Bob Lyday)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:08:29 -0600
The ID is determined by the device's position on the SCSI chain.
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 10:53:00 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:Rob Hughes wrote:
:>
:> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> > Rob Hughes wrote:
:>
:> <deletia>
:>
:> > > > SCSI ID's are NOT transient. One has to assign or reassign a SCSI ID.
:> > > > SCSI does not enumerate the bus and assign IDs dynamically.
:> > >
:> > > Ever hear of SCAM?
:> >
:> > Geez, I have forgotten all about SCAM. Adaptec tried to support that
:> > back in '96 right? Did that ever get put in the SCSI-3 spec? Now that I
:> > remember, they were planning that for SCSI-3. It was ghastly unreliable.
:> > I know it was intended for plug&play peripherals like digital cameras
:> > and scanners, but I have never noticed a drive offering that on the
:> > selection options. Wow, I can't believe I forgot about that.
:> >
:> > Does anyone know of any SCAM configurable hard disks?
:>
:> Yes, Seagate, WD, Quantum and pretty much every SCSI drive released in the
:> last couple years. I've been getting drives with SCAM support from Seagate
:> since about '96 or '97.
:>
:Really? Hmmm, maybe I should double check. I would not use SCAM support
:for a hard disk, I mean, really something like a zip drive, maybe, but
:absolutely not a boot disk. That would be silly.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 03:19:29 GMT
On 28 Feb 2000 01:56:41 GMT, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jeffrey B. Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't consider SCSL as open source, but there are nonetheless at
>least 2 genuinely open source word processors: KWord and AbiWord.
Abiword currently has less functionality than Microsoft's rich text widget.
KWord does not print with any degree of reliability due to fairly low level
font handling print/display problems -- which no no doubt recall from our
prior discussions.
>More if you count LyX and KLyX (although it's a stretch calling these
>"word processors," as they're really more accurately described as
>front ends to LaTeX).
Yeah, I don't count these either. One that I would count that you omitted
is Maxwell. And also Ted. But these are closer to wordpad than full featured
word processors.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 03:28:57 GMT
In article <89co3h$e2l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Todd wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > The real problem is that sony won't be able to show any real
> performance
> > > > gains when they make the PS3 (yes they have already published their
> > > > plans for it!!). They hope to make the PS3's EmotionEngine2 around
> 100x
> > > > faster than the original EE. Good luck is all I can say about that
> since
> > > > they will only have around 5 years to develop it. Just remember
> > > > though
> > > > that the reason why consoles have sold so much better to the public
> > > > is
> > > > that they are far easier to setup than any computer, even a mac.
> > >
> > > Actually, they could make console game engines a *billion* times
> > > faster
> than
> > > a PC for all they want, yet it still isn't going to provide the
> > > gaming
> > > experience that a PC can...
> > >
> > > I just do *not* want to play a game at TV resolutions... Yeck.
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Todd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jim Frost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Todd wrote:
> > > > > > > So, 20 million polygons per second.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, take this into account: The *slowest* new Voodoo
> > > > > > > product
> (the
> > > > > voodoo4)
> > > > > > > will do 333 *mega* pixels per second. That's the slowest.
> > > > > > > I'm
> not
> > > even
> > > > > > > going to mention their other products capable of performing
> *over*
> > > the
> > > > > > > *giga* pixel limit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is an apples/oranges comparison. You're comparing
> > > > > > polygons
> to
> > > the
> > > > > fill
> > > > > > rate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hehe... I was wondering if someone was going to notice :)
> > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't been able to find polygon rates for the Voodoo4,
> perhaps
> > > > > > because it would not compare well to the GeForce (which has a
> > > > > > 15M
> > > polygon
> > > > > > rate, still well below that of the PS2 although it's doing that
> rate
> > > with
> > > > > T&L
> > > > > > functionality too).
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, the GeForce fill rate is about 540 million pixels per
> > > second...
> > > > > but that's with all of its 'special features'... whereas the PS2
> goes
> > > from
> > > > > 75M polygons to just under 20M while using 'its' special
> > > > > features.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note also that polygons on TV resolution will probably have far
> fewer
> > > > > pixels per polygon than somebody running in 1024x768, for
> > > > > example.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the GeForce only had to render with a 240x160 pixel
> > > > > resolution,
> it
> > > would
> > > > > probably blow away a PS2... which is while fill rates are
> > > > > generally
> > > measured
> > > > > in millions of pixels / sec... since the average size of polygons
> would
> > > > > change when the resolution changes. For a TV, it is fixed at a
> very,
> > > very
> > > > > low resolution compared to even the lower resolution for most PC
> > > games...
> > > > > 640x480 (which, probably almost noone uses anymore) - I generally
> play
> > > in
> > > > > 1024x768...
> > > > >
> > > > > -Todd
> > > > > >
> > > > > > jim
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > You say it's cool to be yourself,
> > > > but you want me to be like you
> > > > and that is not being myself
> > > > http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
> > Sony plans to use digital tv when it becomes mainstream. That will be a
> > problem for computer gamers because digital tv can achieve the same
> > resolutions that a computer monitor can. Then again with the standards
> > feud I doubt it will become mainstream for another 5-10 years at which
> > rate I will already have a 22' LCD for my Linux-based PC :)
>
> How high can HDTV's go in terms of resolution? PC gamers are now pushing
> 1600x1280 with GeForce based cards... the new Voodoo's will go even
> higher...
>
> I find it hard to believe that HDTV's are going to have this kind of
> resolution *and* be as clear as computer monitors need to be.
HDTV is 1920x1080.
--
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family."
--George W. Bush in South Carolina
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 03:37:59 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:31:46 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>First, note that I said financially successful, not profitable. The
>discinction is that a company can be profitable at a particular time, but
>still not particularly successful over time. (Corel would be a good example.)
Corel, while not wildly succesful, have maintained their earnings while
maintaining consistent revenue growth. The market seem enthusiastic enough
about them, awarding them a P/E of almost 60.
>> * Adobe ( not as wildly profitable as MS but still doing quite well )
>> * Corel
>
>These companies have both been inconsistenly profitable. I would guess that
>Adobe has been profitable overall but I'm not sure about Corel.
Adobe have undergone fairly consistent earnings growth for several years
now. Corel have been consistently in the black, though their earnings are
flat.
>In fact games--for computers at least--are a really bad argument for the
>financial success of software copyright.
Are you suggesting that cosource would work any better ? I can just see it --
unknown company (X) has a vapourware/semi-vapourware game and they want
payment in advance for it. Well, good luck to them. My guess would be that
almost all of these games would be "failures" by your yardstick, and as such,
would never see the light of day.
>It is largely, but not entirely subjective. I suspect that most people having
>the necessary technical expertise to make such a judgement would agree. Do
>you disagree?
How can you justify a statement that "most software is of poor quality" ?
To what are you comparing it ? The problem is that to substantiate a
statement like this, you need some kind of yardstick.
>Logically it seems pretty clear that the peer review and colaboration benefits
>of open source should result in higher quality.
Well this would depend on how much peer review really takes place. If there
is a large group interested in the project ( say an OS ), more peer review
will take place. But for more specialised software, there won't be the
same degree of peer review. In fact, you'll be lucky to see an OpenSource
product hit the shelf.
Name three OpenSource stock analysis software packages. Do you get my point ?
I agree that software that attracts broad interest and hence widespread
peer review will be of superior quality if an OpenSource implementation is
chosen. However, we've seen that OpenSource video editors, music software
packages, financial packages, etc, are really not that good.
>Interestingly, if this is what you are advocating, I suspect that we basically
>agree (though others in this forum certainly would not). I find nothing wrong
>with having a law that is mostly unenforcable, but exists to establish social
>norms.
This is basically all copyright law can do as far as end users are concerned.
I am certainly against pressing criminal charges against home users who
install pirated software.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 03:48:34 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:38:29 GMT, Mark Christensen wrote:
>Capitalism does not stand opposed to civic duty, at least not clasical
>capitalism.
Civic duty is well and good if it is consistent and fair. It's not consistent
and fair that developers be obliged to share their work while others are
not. Either sharing should or shouldn't be a social norm. The socialists
are more in favour of sharing, the capitalists are against it. The hypocrites
are the ones who don't want to share their "stuff" with others, but expect
others to share with them.
> . Manditory
>military service is a longstanding practice of many capitalist countries.
Yes, and everyone does the same military service. You don't enact a law
saying that "all developers are obliged to do military service" while
other people are not.
>Civilized countries also requires that we "share" public spaces (even ones
>which are privately owned, like malls and restaraunts) with minorities.
We aren't the ones sharing it. The owners of the place in question are
choosing to share it with us because they have a business interest in doing
so. But they don't have to share it with us. They'd be within their rights
to just shut the mall down. There are anti-discrimination laws that say that
business owners have limited powers in their ability to choose who to
share their space with. But they can certainly choose whether to share
them or not.
As for public property, it is purchased with public funds and built with
public or publically funded labor.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: 28 Feb 2000 04:09:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a rare day when we can pull greater than 20 kb/s from cdrom.com
Must be something youre doing wrong. I just (on friday morning) did a
RedHat install from cdrom.com at 300-330kb/s. And that bottleneck was
on MY side.
Or it could be you simply (yet again) not understanding the way
the internet works.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: 27 Feb 2000 22:08:48 -0600
In article <kvgu4.2620$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>What does this have to do with ext2 being a crappy filesystem and it's
>needing to be replaced/overhauled?
>
>NTFS will work fine in just about every situation, whereas, ext2 will not
>due to major, glaring limitations.
Ummm, try letting that NTFS fill completely with subdirectories
of tiny files. Then delete them and wonder why you don't get
the space back...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 04:10:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not really. Most unix-to-unix migrations (bsd/bsd, sysV/sysV) are
>> pretty straightforward and simple.
> as if you'd know... ha!
I would know actually. You on the other hand, clearly wouldnt.
> but most "migrations" are from unix to nt these days anyway...
Do you have a source for this assertion?
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is C.O.L.A here right?
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:12:51 +0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wow, Reading way to much W2K stuff here. Time for talk about a GOOD OS!
> I just upgraded to Mandrake 7.0 and I am impressed! The best install
> program I have EVER seen!
I've been trying to install it from a hard disk butno luck. There's not
much in the Mandrake site I can find
except creating the boot disk (with hd.img, of course).
In my c: drive, I have this:
Mandrake
|--RPMS
|--base
It installs the packages but after the post install configuration,
error messages come like;
/usr/bin/perl-install dumpkeys.pm ( I can't exactly remember.)
and many more.
It even fails in creating the boot disk.
I have been succesful with the older Mandrake distro's
but now I'm wasting nights just to figure out what else do I need.
Anyone had similar experience?
>
Ferdinand
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 04:11:15 GMT
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drive fast? Buddy - you don't know! Take your pick 157 was the best I did on
> my FZR-750 many years ago, but 191 is better in my Viper these days (I'm
> lazier now).
Theres a guy named dan that swears you dont own a viper.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: Bill Shine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows Network Configuratin?
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 04:43:20 GMT
I'd like to use Windows NT on a laptop, but I can't, because I can't
reconfigure the network settings without a reboot and a lot of fiddling around
when I hook it up to different networks, because the IP address, the gateway,
and the DNS servers are different. This is very easy to do on Linux. How does
one go about doing it on windows?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:00:11 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> You give Microsoft too much credit. They want money, and you get that
> by charging for bug fixes; pretty simple really, and not "evil" or
> "bad" either.
Exactly! I don't hate Microcrap for treating customers like crap.
gouging them and making crappy. worthless junk products, or for being
successful. I feel the market will take care of lousy products, rip-off
pricing and shoddy support. There is no law against producing junk and
then overcharging for it. Neither should anyone be faulted for
success. My whole beef against Microslime is that it is a gang of
criminals who has broken the antitrust laws. Kind of like the Crips and
the Bloods in 3-piece suits...
>
> And "consumer NT" has been coming for at least four years now.
> NT5 was supposed to be this operating system. Windows98 was going to
> be the last bugfix in the DOS line; then 98se came out, and now
> Millenium will follow.
>
This is all so tiresome and pitiful. Lose ME will be nothing more than
the same old piece of trash DOS-shell with a lot of fancy eye-candy.
This crap is getting old.
And Lose 2000 is not so good. I know 3 people who tried it: with one,
it blue-screened every morning when he woke up, with the other one, it
was blue-screening 3 times a day without even being used (!) (Guess it
was trying to get attention! LOL!), and with the other it was
completely locking up once an hour. I know several people who put it on
for a couple of days to a couple of weeks then got so sick of it they
took it off. This is some kind of Unix-killing, STABLE (?)
revolutionary new product? Damn, what a pitiful, sorry-ass joke it is!
It's nothing but the same old suicide machine. Windows is so broken
that if M$ ever wants a decent OS they will have to start from scratch.
Course I don't want them to make a good product! Then they might really
be scary -- yikes!
--
Bob
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ .. \~@
/_( \__/ )_\
\_ U_/
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
