Linux-Advocacy Digest #596, Volume #26 Fri, 19 May 00 08:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: A Blast From Oracle's Past (Re: Is the PC era over?) (Tim Tyler)
Re: Your office and Linux. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451684 (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Sam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Blast From Oracle's Past (Re: Is the PC era over?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:03:52 GMT
In comp.lang.java.advocacy JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: David Huet wrote:
:> What a lack of vision. You just don't get it. The network is the
:> computer. It may not be the NC or the Palm, but something like
:> this, very powerful, that does away with the excruciatingly complex
:> and buggy OS in a PC, will eventually take over as the appliance
:> or the masses. Come back in ten years and tell me that I was wrong.
: Whoah! Look at this guys, a post from ten years ago, telling us how the
: diskless workstation is gonna take over the world! [...]
Basically, he's right. Most of the processing power that's present on
desktops today will wind up in the server, where it should be.
Having computing power unnecessarily distributed over a large area us
expensive and inefficient - a legacy from the pre-internet era.
Probably, the next main network-capable "diskless workstation" will evolve
smoothly out of today's mobile 'phone.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ UART what UEAT.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:34:24 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> : > I find your praise of a person like Charlie most disturbing. If you
> : > really think that a person who says little more than "If you don't use
> : > Linux, then fuck you!" is an ideal advocate, I'd hate to experience your
> : > definition of a zealot.
>
> : You basically say the same 'FU' statement to all of us Linux users, no matter
> : how sophisticated you think your vocabulary is.....you haven't fooled me as to
> : what the real meaning/demeaning content of your statements are.
>
> And exactly how do I do this? By showing the claims of others to be
> baloney? This is not saying "FU". This is saying "you're wrong".
>
> The only people I ever tell off, are people like Charlie; people who make
> claims, fail to back them up, and then call other people idiots when they
> don't "get it".
>
> : I haven't seen the 'ideal' advocate for anything, so I'm not making that
> : statement you are trying to put in my mouth. I find Charlie to be a little
> : more zealous than the majority of us. Considering the amount of zealousness
> : from the Windows' camp over the years in other newsgroups dealing with OS2,
> : Macs, Linux, etc., I think Charlie has a long ways to go before he reaches the
> : obnoxious levels of expression as achieved by the "S"es and "Steve"s of the MS
> : world.
>
> : As for the way I advocate Linux, I don't do it Charlie's way at all...but I'm
> : not going to say he is totally out of line in his methods (unless he suddenly
> : renders the non-linux newsgroups inoperable).
>
> Charlie doesn't advocate Linux at all. All he does is spew evangelical
> nonsense that has no bearing in reason whatsoever. If you consider this
> to be acceptable, then I must, as I already stated, question your own
> reasons for praising him.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
Stephen!
Your a masterbating nitwit!
You holler I don't bother you then you go right out and type 50 replies
to
my bulletins and everybody who supports Linux!
Your a mastebating nitwit!
A masterbating nitwit who's appearently never heard of a Microsoft
server or
workstation blue screening!
A masterbating nitwit who's appearently never heard of a Microsoft
server or
workstation blue screening, who also claims to work in the field of
Artificial
Intelligence probably on Microsoft OS's none the less!
In spite of that antler rack of a closing you put with your name,
your still just another masterbating nitwit who will be terribly upset
when your entire collection of video games comes to an end as Microsoft
WILL DIE! HA!
And I'm really looking forward to Microsoft being OUT OF THE OFFICE!
Microsoft going broke will probably also mean that we will never see
you or your antlers again! Double HA! HA!
Now,
As for the comment I will shut down the newgroup. NO I won't.
It will be little Stephen here if anyone.
Stephen is really the BEST advertising for going the Linux way, don't
you think. I mean people don't want to be associated with this kind
of drool.
I mean the man has all the classic signs of intelligence a greek statue
does.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 06:44:02 -0500
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>>>>>Bummer dude because "The FEDS" began their MS anti-trust
> >>>>>>investigation in
> >>>>>That was not the DOJ. That was the FTC.
> >>>>FTC == _Fed_eral Trade Commission, isn't it??
> >>>>You stoop to new lows in your quest of denial, "Erik"...
> >>>The original statement, which you conveniently cut, stated specifically
> >>>the DOJ. Joseph said "the feds", in response to that, also referring
to
> >>>the DOJ.
> >DOJ. Here, let's look at it, shall we?
>
> >>MS has denied the existance of a chinese wall since at *LEAST* December
of
> >>1991 when Mark Maples (MS's spokesman at the time) stated it didn't
exist
> >>in InfoWorld. This was years before any DOJ negotiations.
> >>The Chinese Wall was talked about in the mid-80's, not in the 90's.
> >And then Joseph responded:
> >>Bummer dude because "The FEDS" began their MS anti-trust investigation
in
> >>1989 - two full years before 1991.
>
> That sort of proves that Joseph *must* have talked about other federal
offices
> than the DOJ according to you own statements, doesn't it???
> The only one that can read Joseph's remark as having no other explanation
than
> "FEDS = DOJ" is someone who *wants* to read it that way so he can dismiss
it
> off-hand. You wouldn't want to do that, now, would you?
How do you get that? The discussion was about the DOJ, Joseph said "Bummer
dude because..." indicating that he was say I was wrong that the DOJ
investigation began years after 1991. If he had intended to say that other
offices were investigating MS before the DOJ, he would have said that.
Instead, he continued the discussion in the same context without specifying
any other specific agency other than "the feds" which certainly includes the
DOJ.
The term "the feds" also includes the CIA. Do you really think the CIA was
investigating MS? It also includes the messhall of the 1st batallion
rangers. Do you think the chefs there were investigating MS?
Clearly if he had intended to mean some other branch, he would have said
some other branch insteading making it appear that he was disagreeing with
my statement that the DOJ's investigation began years after the article.
>
> --
> Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" -
Yoda
> Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
> Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
> Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but
myself
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 06:46:31 -0500
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Illya Vaes wrote:
> >Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>I think it's perfectly legitimate for DOS to have
> >>undocumented API's if they do nothing but access internal data that 3rd
> >>party programs should not be accessing.
> >You mean 3d party programs (to DOS anyway) like Windows???
> >What the f*ck does Windows have to find in "internal data" unless it's
not
> >really "internal" after all?
> >Excuses, excuses, excuses...
>
> I note that "Erik" has not responded.
What is there to respond to?
Windows communicates very closely with DOS and replaces many DOS functions
(and in Windows 95, nearly all of them). Windows uses DOS data structures
for process and module creation.
Windows 3.0 and 3.1 was not marketed as an add-on for any version of DOS.
It was marketed as an add-on for MS-DOS or PC-DOS, since those two versions
had very known structures.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:39:17 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> : >
> : > Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : >
> : > : On 18 May 2000 00:44:19 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II
> : > : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : >
> : > : >Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> writes:
> : > : >
> : > : >: On 16 May 2000 23:40:20 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : > : >: wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : >: >I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
> : > : >: >late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me?
> : > : >
> : > : >: Linux has come a long way since 1996. Your knowledge is a bit dated.
> : > : >
> : > : >I'm sure it is. I'm not arguing the technical validity of Linux here,
> : >
> : > : But you are here:
> : >
> : > : Message-ID: <8fmlur$i7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : > : http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623294410
> : >
> : > : __It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
> : > : __very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
> : > : __but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
> : > : __possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees.
> : >
> : > : You are making a claim here. Then you immediately follow with:
> : >
> : > : __This
> : > : __has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
> : > : __hardware problem.
> : >
> : > : You are basing your claim on anecdotal evidence. Wait a minute, that's
> : > : nearly 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
> : >
> : > *sigh* Perry, you just don't comprehend very well, I'm afraid. No, that
> : > wasn't an insult... it was an observation.
> : >
> : > Let's analyze what I've said:
> : >
> : > "...it's quite possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees."
>
> : No. This is an untrue statement.
>
> No it isn't. If you knew half as much as you claim to, you'd know that
> what I'm saying has, and does happen (though the frequency of such
> occurrences are small).
How small are they Stephen! HA!
>
> : > This statement is true. It's true, because such occurrences have been
> : > documented, and presented. The reason why this has happened is because
> : > The X Window System runs as a privelged root process. If an X server
> : > suddenly decides to misbehave, X can lock up. As others pointed out, this
> : > does not necessarily lock Linux up, but it can make it impossible to get
> : > to Linux locally.
>
> : IF it were the truth it wouldn't require wordy explanation of logic.
>
> It's called "backing up one's claim". How predictable that you would fail
> to notice such a thing.
It's also called lying.
>
> : It is not true.
>
> Whatever.
I like this comment.
>
> : >
> : > Also notice that I said "it's quite possible". I didn't say "it will".
>
> : No, it's not possible either.
>
> Whatever.
I like this one too.
>
> : >
> : > You are taking what I am saying, inflating it into something it's not, and
> : > then claiming that I'm using the same arguing tactics as Charlie. In
> : > effect, you are arguing much like politicians argue. You're looking for
> : > deep semantic relationships that aren't there from common sense
> : > viewpoints, but that can be drawn by an irrational need to win an
> : > argument, it would seem.
>
> : My tactics don't include total bullshit.
>
> <SARCASM>
> Oh, of course not. You're "tactics" consist purely of carefully
> constructed reasoning and logic. You are perhaps the most potent debatee
> I have ever gone up against.
> </SARCASM>
if Sarcasm = total bullshit then I'd agree with you.
But they don't.
Sarcasm assumes intelligence.
>
> : >
> : > In short, you keep taking what I say out of context. That is your
> : > problem, not mine. If you'd stop trying to see what isn't there, you
> : > wouldn't need to be wasting so much time typing.
>
> : You can't take total bullshit out of context.
>
> As you'd obviously know. Otherwise, you wouldn't rely on it so heavily
> for your own arguments.
>
> : > --
> : > .-----.
> : > |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> : > | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> : > | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> : > |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>
> : Would you mind SSE...
>
> : Run along now and masterbate on some other advocacy group's time.
>
> No thanks. I'm engaged to one of those things know as "women" (those
> curvy things in those magazines of yours). I don't need to "masturbate".
>
> Judging by how nauseating your words are, I can only imagine what a
> disgusting individual you must be in person.
>
> You sir, are about as clever as a bag full of doorknobs.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
And if brains were testicles I suppose you think your the martian
lander!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451684
Date: 19 May 2000 11:38:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Yes I did.
>
>Where allegedly?
How ironic.
>> You've just not been very specific.
>
>Incorrect, given that I reproduced the exact sentence of yours where
>you used "again", Pascal.
Obviously it has disappeared "again".
>> Are you saying that you did not forget to digest me?
>
>Yes, Pascal.
What a relief, Dave.
>> Perhaps you chose not to digest me on purpose?
>
>Of course, Pascal.
Why?
>> I want you to get on your knees and ask me to marry you,
>
>Illogical, Pascal.
You don't have to get on your knees per se. That was just a manner of
speaking.
>> but lacking that, I want you to admit that you forgot to digest me.
>
>Why should I admit to something that isn't the truth, Pascal?
I'll concede that you don't have to.
>> Indeed.
>
>Do you intend to do something about that problem of yours, Pascal?
If you would like me to.
>> Where do you think do I get my impression of you?
>
>I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise there.
I don't think you understood the significance of my answer.
>> You think I'm sweet?
>
>I know you're a liar.
Only that was not the question.
>> I think your memory has gone bad.
>
>What you think is irrelevant, Pascal. What you can prove is relevant.
This digesting form of yours clearly proves the span of your attention
to be diminishing.
>> We can have it examined if you like.
>
>Who is "we", Pascal?
You and me, Dave.
>> Almost certainly not.
>
>The key word here is "almost".
The key to your heart?
>> What a coincidence.
>
>Non sequitur.
Not really.
>> Maybe we should get ourselves examined together.
>
>Maybe not.
It could be great.
>> We can hold hands and eat ice-cream if you like.
>
>Illogical, Pascal.
Sorry, Dave.
>> Do you like ice-cream?
>
>Irrelevant, Pascal.
I couldn't help myself.
>> Because you want more?
>
>Incorrect, Pascal.
More evidence of your inconsistency.
>> I never said you should,
>
>Then why do you keep asking me to do so, Pascal?
I rest my case.
>> sweet dandelion.
>
>Non sequitur.
Buttercup.
>> Nevertheless you keep coming back for more.
>
>For more what, Pascal?
Don't you know, Dave?
>> "still", Dave?
>
>Yes, Pascal; still having reading comprehension problems?
"still", Dave?
>> Do you particularly like to say that,
>
>What I like or dislike isn't relevant, Psacal.
"Psacal"? More evidence of your memory problem I'm afraid.
>> even though it isn't true?
>
>On the contrary, it's quite true that you weren't specific.
But all-inclusive.
>> More evidence of your memory problems.
>
>You're erroneously presupposing that the event occurred for me to
>remember it, Pascal.
More evidence still, Dave. Let me take care of you.
>> Ask me later.
>
>Still non sequitur.
Is it important?
>> It's surprising that you think I ever stopped, though.
>
>Why is it a surprise, Pascal?
Because it gives yet more evidence for the memory problem that you are so
vehemently denying.
>> No thanks.
>
>Non sequitur.
Determined by who?
>> Perhaps.
>
>On the contrary, it's quite certain that you were non sequitur, Pascal.
"quite", Dave?
>> Perhaps.
>
>On the contrary, for sure you did jump to a conclusion, Pascal.
Difficult to say, given our mutual memory problem.
>> Perhaps.
>
>On the contrary, you did write "if", Pascal.
Difficult to say, given our mutual memory problem.
--
Rate your CSMA savvy by identifying the writing styles of
ancient and recent, transient and perdurable CSMA inhabitants:
(35 posters, 252 quotes)
<http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 06:49:50 -0500
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3925188b$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Why do you people keep claiming I say things I obviously have not said?
>
> Because you do say different things at different times depending on which
> lie you are trying to defend. You aren't smart enough to be a liar. You
> can't remember what you wrote.
Untrue. People read things into what I say that I haven't said. I know
exactly what I have written, because I choose my words very carefully in
most cases to show specifically what I mean.
If I say "Bill gates doesn't say that Office benefits from Windows source
code" I am not saying that Office doesn't benefit from Windows. Read more
carefully.
> > I've said that Windows takes things that the Apps group develops and
> > makes it part of the OS, not the other way around.
>
> > And if I haven't said it specifically, i've certainly implied that
> > Office makes use of new OS features. But 3rd parties can make use of
> > those same features as well.
>
> If that be true, then one of the remedies the Feds should seek is a ban on
> MS releasing any updates, new software, patches, etc. to any application
> until six months have passed after the release of any new version, update,
> or patch to the Operating System.
Great, then that means that security issues cannot be fixed for 6 months.
I'm sure the OS community will love that.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 06:51:22 -0500
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:392518ed$4$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > OLE was introduced as part of the OS in 1992, it was NEVER an office
> > only
> > > > solution.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
>
> > Pre-OLE2 was useless. I don't even consider it OLE since it was so
> > radically different.
>
> There you go again. You get caught in a lie so you try to distort history
> to justify your lies.
No, I'm telling you what my thougts were. When anyone says OLE, I don't
even consider OLE1. It simply isn't in what i'm thinking, thus it's not in
what I'm writing about.
------------------------------
From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 21:52:09 +1000
On Fri, 19 May 2000 03:08:54 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I got your picture but your picture is miles from the truth.
>Go spend just $45 of your hard earned cash and get a copy of Suse 6.4,
>install it, then come back here and repeat those words you've just said!
Buy ?
$45 ?
It's supposed to be free (worth ever cent)
Sam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
