Linux-Advocacy Digest #497, Volume #26 Sun, 14 May 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (fungus)
w2k beats unix ("Serge J.Luca")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Full Name)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Evan DiBiase")
Re: w2k beats unix (Matt Gaia)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: w2k beats unix (mlw)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Salvador Peralta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 13:36:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On the contrary, that is the best part.
>
> Most customers are not interested in debugging bug-laden software.
> Where do you get this impression?
>
>From the Redmond offerings....
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
------------------------------
From: "Serge J.Luca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: w2k beats unix
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 15:35:05 +0200
www.tpc.org
Any comment ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
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: Sun, 14 May 2000 14:06:39 GMT
On 8 May 2000 17:26:29 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
wrote:
>
>In Personal Computer World there was an interesting story about a
>similar thing. When using Netscape on MS's web site, a certain page
>would give a 404 error. However, when a pref was set to use an
>IE-style User-Agent string, the same page came up perfectly.
>Interesting...
>
I've done a fair amount of WWW page development. IE is simply more
forgiving with improperly syntaxed HTML than Netscape.
------------------------------
From: "Evan DiBiase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:08:38 -0400
Stephen Edwards already made a good reply to your post, but I'll throw in a
few of my comments, anyway.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Evan DiBiase wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > And in the WORKING catagory, Microsoft lacks.
> >
> > This is the second time you've claimed this. This computer is certainly
> > "working," and it's running Windows 2000. How is it "lacking?"
>
> When I worked for HBOC it was a blue screening mess.
I haven't had a blue screen yet, and people I've talked to say the same.
> Microsoft products simply can't handle a LOAD!
>
> What really gets me sick is to see somebody who uses their NT box
> as some telnet device or web browser, a light load, then proclaims
> triumphantly that NT is working.
Well, it's working _for me_. You seem to imply that "working" is running
slashdot.org or microsoft.com. For me, working _is_ browsing the web, using
ICQ, using Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, and everything else a typical "home
user" does. I also use Visual C++.
In short, I don't know why this would make you sick. It's working for me, so
why can't I proclaim that NT is working?
> Well, W2K ain't working either as it seemingly can't even handle
> the simple job of running LAME terminal emulation software.
Huh? Is there a specific sort of "LAME terminal emulation software" you'd
like me to try for you? Or are you just making wild statements without
anything to back them up?
> I've been a computer programmer for very close to 20 years now.
Excellent. I've been a computer programmer for very close to 2 years now. So
what?
> I used to be a BIG microsoft supporter.
Like Stephen pointed out, this sounds like you were as much of a Microsoft
mindless zealot as a Linux mindless zealot.
> I know what the hell I'm talking about.
Do you?
> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers since
I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What more
do you want?
> Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
Oh, yes, this really tells us a lot...
> It's a bunch of borrowed ideas which have been sewed together over
> the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
> it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
> The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
Even ignoring the "south park"/PARC confusion and the fact that they didn't
create DOS, I say: What's wrong with borrowing ideas? Linux wouldn't be the
operating system you know and will defend to the death if Linus hadn't tried
to copy, well, everything from UNIX. "Selective borrowing" is a good thing.
If Microsoft sees that multitasking is a good thing, why shouldn't they add
it? You'd probably be complaining that Windows has no multitasking if
Microsoft took your "advice" and decided to think of ideas on its own.
> And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
Uh, that's a great assertion. Do you have any proof? Stephen Edwards pointed
to several high load, high profile web sites that are running IIS and
Windows 2000/NT. Are they merely imaginary?
> In every job which has involved Microsoft products, EVERY COMMERCIAL
> SOFTWARE MANUAL I've had to write to support MY software, I've HAD
> to
> put in a paragraph explaining why it's a good idea to turn your servers
> around every work day and to turn your desktops around every 3-4 days.
> Because if you use Microsoft OS's for anything SERIOUS, you'll have to.
Define "SERIOUS." I would consider the work I do on this computer to be
"SERIOUS," and I don't need to reboot every 3-4 days.
> YOU'LL HAVE TO OR IT WILL BLUE SCREEN.
I haven't gotten ANY BLUE SCREENS! Will you please at least make an attempt
to back up your assertions? Obviously there are some servers out there
running Microsoft products that might blue screen. Saying that blue screens
are inevitable in any Microsoft software is just stupid.
> Linux is a continuation of ONE concept. They aren't trying to re-invent
> the
> world and then HOPE it works.
Well, no. But, according to your little "south park" bit up above, Microsoft
isn't trying to re-invent the world, either. They're just stealing things
that have already been invented.
Same as, say, *cough* KDE *cough*, which is a very nice desktop environment
but still seems to be ripped almost directly from Windows.
> They don't have the manpower nor technical knowledge to accomplish their
> OS goals and I'm using 95, 98, NT and W2K as support for that argument!
Who doesn't? Microsoft? What are their "OS goals," where do they publicly
state them, and how are Windows 9x, NT, and Windows 2000 support for any of
what you just claimed?
> If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
> OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
Let's see... I've had several badly coded Winamp plugins decide to do some
nasty stuff, and once Quake III decided to chop off half of the screen. I
just went to the task manager and killed the application, and everything was
back to normal. It didn't take the OS down, and prolonged use of Windows
2000 hasn't become very disasterous.
Now, I'm not saying that Linux is any different. It's certainly very stable.
> We have another company who's had some Linux boxes in continuous
> scientific
> research now for 1 year and 4 months running. I've got some other
> business
> contacts who've had Linux servers up for almost 3 years running.
That's great -- Linux is indeed very stable. But saying "Linux is stable"
doesn't prove that "Windows 2000 is not stable."
> I have been recognized in several magazines for my efforts in converting
> software for the life insurance companies of America and I'm on the
> front
> cover of one of America's most popular compilers.
That's pretty neat!
> Unless you've written software and have some expertise in the OS's you
> work
> with, you have positively NO business giving out recommendations to
> inferior products.
Well, yes, I do -- I have written some software (not very large stuff, yet)
but I do use the OSs that I talk about, and so I have knowledge of how they
work. I feel that I DO have business giving out recommendations... to a lot
of different products. Just because I don't have your 20 years in the
software industry, many articles, picture on commercial software, big fluffy
rabbit, etc. doesn't mean that I'm incapable of thinking.
> And let me just add this. If Microsoft had it's head pulled out of it's
> butt,
> the world would NOT have had to endure this ILOVEYOU VB script.
Uh... Microsoft really could have prevented users from clicking on an
attachment. They do have
http://www.microsoft.com/misc/data/lovelettervirus.htm that supposedly has
information and resources for the ILOVEYOU virus.
> This is YET another example of why I say Microsoft was NEVER ready for
> prime time.
How?
> People think Microsoft is the only way to empower them at the office.
> That's the real reason Microsoft is alive today. But that's the ONLY
> reason
> they are alive today. It isn't because of programming excellence.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking! I said, "Gee, Windows will empower
me at the office, considering I don't have one, even after I've been using
only Linux for the past 4 years!" It looks like you haven't considered the
fact the some people use Microsoft software because it works for them, not
because they're mindless shills.
-Evan
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: w2k beats unix
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:15:46 -0400
Yes, you're a troll for one. Secondly, there's really no mention of w2k
vs. Unix on the page (unless I just read the whole site wrong :) ).
Finally, *plonk*
Matt
> www.tpc.org
>
> Any comment ?
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 14:08:04 GMT
ah, the whole group resorting to bashing. I know I've won the debate
now!
In article <8fm1k7$77b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Leonardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nice writing Stephen!
> And so true also :-)
>
> --
> Leonardo
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fk6rk$8hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Yeap typical stephen, nothing but personal attacks. Nothing to
backup
> > his claims.
> >
> >
> > In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8fjtff$ul3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > >
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2568904,00.html
> > >
> > > Yep. Typical Templetonism. If he's not posting the useless
> > > rambling of computing journalists, then he's twisting facts
> > > to suit theories, rather than theories to suit facts. And, as
> > > always, he assumes that journalists not only have the expertise
> > > and facts of experienced system administrators at their
> > > fingertips, but also that they themselves are experts in the
> > > electronics industry.
> > >
> > > Of course, if you give Matt factual data, _your_ presentation
> > > becomes mere opinion, and inconsequential. In short, in order
> > > for something to be factual in Matt's eyes, the following
> > > condition must hold:
> > >
> > > fact == ("What he wants to hear"("Anti-Microsoft"))
> > > +
> > > ("Half-assed journalist rambling")
> > >
> > > I really think it would be easy for someone to emulate Matt
> > > Templeton, if they so desired out of pure entertainment.
> > > After all, 16kb of mental capacity can't be all that
> > > difficult to mimic, can it?
> > >
> > > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > > just simply follow these steps:
> > >
> > > 1.) _NEVER_ have an opinion of your own. Always post
> > > the opinions of other people, and regard them as
> > > solid, grounded fact(s). Then, when the opinion
> > > which you posted is proven to be nothing but
> > > contrived baloney, you can easily say "well, I
> > > didn't say it... he/she did!"
> > >
> > > 2.) Quantify things that cannot be quantified by placing
> > > the word "real" in front of them. For example:
> > >
> > > "REAL" work (this is my favorite)
> > > "REAL" operating system
> > > "REAL" useful
> > > "REAL" professionals
> > > "REAL" architecture
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > In order to properly use these phrases in a sentence,
> > > you must make sure that the "real" [word] part references
> > > your favorite OS, or architecture, etc.
> > >
> > > Ex: Even though [company] uses [OS-a] and [OS-b]
> > > its clear that the "REAL" work is done on
> > > [OS-a].
> > >
> > > NOTE: [OS-a] is usually the equivalent of a UNIX-variant,
> > > or even more likely a Linux flavor.
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > Ex: You use [OS-c]? Try using a "REAL" operating
> > > system, like [OS-a]!
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > Ex: [OS-d] for 3D graphics? Well, Maya, Lightwave
> > > 3D Studio, and other high-end software may run
> > > under it, but "REAL" 3D animation professionals
> > > use machines running [OS-a]!
> > >
> > > NOTE: Make sure to make generalized assumptions and comments
> > > about fields of work which you know absolutely nothing
> > > about, when using "REAL" phrases. The above is a perfect
> > > example of such an assumption.
> > >
> > > 3.) If you post a URL to a source of information, and
> > > that URL is has been sufficiently been torn apart
> > > and shown to be a load of mule cookies, simply
> > > post that very same URL over and over again, stating
> > > that it is indeed factual, because you said so. If
> > > your debating opponent refuses to acknowledge that
> > > you are correct (which you are, because your posts
> > > clearly outnumber his), then return to step number 2.
> > >
> > > 4.) Finally, when your debating opponent gets sick and
> > > tired of your bull muffin-saturated malarchy and
> > > anti-anything-Microsoft whining, and they insult you
> > > because you're too underdeveloped to parse anything
> > > in that walnut-sized brain of yours, simply state
> > > how "sad" it is that they cannot have a logical
> > > argument with you.
> > >
> > > Okay, I have the algorithms laid out here. However, I
> > > must ask the folks in CSMA, what's a good language to
> > > design a wankerbot in? Perl? Perhaps a LISP language?
> > > Will it require any artificial intelligence programming?
> > > If so, then it won't work as this bot was not designed
> > > to use intelligence.
> > >
> > > Also, do you people have a standard rating system for
> > > trolling? If so, it might be a good idea to implement
> > > something similar in COMNA. Of course, in true Microsoft
> > > tradition, we'd have to take credit for it. ;-) j/k
> > >
> > > And finally, if you do have a standard troll rating system,
> > > what did my post rate? :-)
> > > --
> > > .-----.
> > > |[_] :| 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: w2k beats unix
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:36:48 -0400
"Serge J.Luca" wrote:
>
> www.tpc.org
>
> Any comment ?
yea, even the tpc guys are starting to think that their benchmarks are
worthless.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 15:25:15 GMT
> > Now I'd like to read some about your background?
>
> Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers since
> I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What more
> do you want?
And this is what it takes to be a Windows supporter today.
> > And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
>
> Uh, that's a great assertion. Do you have any proof? Stephen Edwards pointed
> to several high load, high profile web sites that are running IIS and
> Windows 2000/NT. Are they merely imaginary?
Oh god son. You are just beginning in life. You need to go read some
magazines.
> > Linux is a continuation of ONE concept. They aren't trying to re-invent
> > the
> > world and then HOPE it works.
>
> Well, no. But, according to your little "south park" bit up above, Microsoft
> isn't trying to re-invent the world, either. They're just stealing things
> that have already been invented.
It would truely only make sense Evan if you were a computer programmer.
But I think someday son you will be one. And I wish you the best of
luck.
I have a 17 year old daughter and a 13 year old daughter myself.
I think it's good you support what you believe Evan.
But I also think you should explore and learn now.
And I'm going to pry on your curiosity some now.
I want you to buy a box of Suse 6.4 down at the computer store
and install it on your machine so you can compare W2K to
Suse.
Then I want you to come back here and talk with us again.
Take care
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 15:27:53 GMT
ax wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > When I was writing software for HBOC, I felt I was doing something great
> > for the
> > company. I was comming up with new packages, helping them go into new
> > markets
> > with new ideas.
> >
> > Then I saw their profit board and realized that their profits were 80%
> > from support
> > and maintainance contracts and very little of the top line came from my
> > writing code.
> >
> > They would GIVE away my work in order to get the more lucrative
> > maintenance contract
> > as the medical software industry is a continually changing thing.
> >
> > So Linux will survive and the GPL is sound.
>
> Watch how the stock market justifies the soundness of GPL.
> Have fun !
>
> >
> > Microsoft does the reverse of this, or course.
> >
> > Charlie
Okay, I'll give you my professional opinion on this.
Stock markets always wallow in a certain technology just before a
monuments
change is about to occur.
There is every sound reason to believe that with the Breakup of
Microsoft,
Combined with the manpower of Linux, we see a sudden death of Microsoft
OS by 2006.
There you go!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 15:28:51 GMT
ax wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
> >
> > It's a bunch of borrowed ideas which have been sewed together over
> > the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
> > it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
> > The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
>
> Linux borrowed and stole more.
>
> > If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
> > OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
> >
>
> Don't naturally assume Linux OS never crashes on others
> if it hasn't crashed on you. There is no bug free OS.
I think the point your missing here is nobody in the world has
experienced it and wrote about it. It's true apps die, but
not the entire OS such as in a blue screen!
>
> >
> > This is YET another example of why I say Microsoft was NEVER ready for
> > prime time.
> >
>
> Microsoft already had its prime time.
>
> > Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 15:32:28 GMT
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| 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
I did some checking on this group.
See, they are writing AI under Microsoft products!
HA.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 15:33:59 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > --
> > .-----.
> > |[_] :| 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
>
> I did some checking on this group.
>
> See, they are writing AI under Microsoft products!
>
> HA.
>
> Charlie
Oh geeze, If Microsoft only has 16 and 18 year olds behind them,
then I'll move this death estimate up to 2005!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 08:41:20 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > WRT allowing your government to "protect you" from exposure to
> > alternative points of view, Gods save us from such noblesse oblige. I
> > don't think it's healthy.
>
> Bullshit. Stop contorting the meaning of what I've said. The
> government is not protecting *me* from anything, but protecting the
> constitution from offenders.
I distorted nothing. This is what you said:
---
> Our governments'[0] attitude towards Scientology is another reason why
> it's good to live in Germany.
---
Your government practises censorship towards alternative groups.
Scientology isn't the only example. The types of in-group / out-group
models practised in germany and elsewhere are simply not healthy. The
antisemitic movement in germany and europe generally over the first half
of this century is just one example of where that type of politics can
lead. There are certain rights of the individual that must be protected
from the prejudices of others.
> And yes, it is very American to think that letting a criminal and
> anticonstitutional organisation like Scientology act freely is just
> "exposing the people to alternative points of view".
...and it's very german to villify, criminalize, and exclude outgroups
by virtue of what they believe, or how they live their lives. 50 years
ago, to hear germany's politicians speak of it, the Jews were behind the
political agenda, now it's the scientologists and (who was it you said?)
Spelling? Is he another jew, matthias?
How many generations are the german people going to keep repeating that
same mistake. I thought that we were suppposed to learn from history,
not repeat it. Talk about spinning the same circle on the karmic
pinwheel.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
