Linux-Advocacy Digest #641, Volume #26 Mon, 22 May 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Eduard Bloch)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Beowulf (junekis)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Rob Barris)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Edwin")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Mike Ruskai")
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (abraxas)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Grant W. Petty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (josco)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?) ("Edwin")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (nohow)
Re: HP-UX vs. Linux
Re: The future...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eduard Bloch)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 22 May 2000 22:35:07 GMT
Am Don, 18 Mai 2000 um 19:36 GMT schrieb
Someone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.development.apps:
>What I would like is a kde multitrack recording application. I would like
>at least 8 tracks, loops, effects, mixing, bouncing, dehiss using a
Sure, this would be cool. But don't use the f***ing KDE as environment
for such good apps.
Eduard.
--
=====================================================================
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; HP: http://eduard.bloch.com/edecosi
0xEDF008C5(gpg): E6EB 98E2 B885 8FF0 6C04 5C1D E106 481E EDF0 08C5
**
Do bl Sp ce is a v ry saf me hod of driv compr s ion
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 23 May 2000 00:23:17 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-tqIXq4dlqd4m@localhost...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
> > >
> > > Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
> > >
> >
> > I had a copy of Windows 3.1 running in OS/2 v3. Look ma, no DOS!
>
> The version of Windows used by OS/2 is modified to work correctly with OS/2.
>
> According to Andrew Schulman, the code that causes problems with DR-DOS also
> causes problems with OS/2's VDM.
>
See Marty's reply. I tried - for fun - if I could make a
non-integrated Windows 3.1 (bought from a store) version to run in a
DOS VDM on a red spine Warp 3 that didn't have WinOS/2 installed.
Lo and behold.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: junekis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Beowulf
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:38:55 -0400
==============4A033D5D414776D9530CF27F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Have you looked at SGI's Advanced Clustering Environment (ACE) for Linux?
http://www.sgi.com/software/ace/linux.html
There's training and support available...
mlw wrote:
> I have convinced the people, with which I currently work, to setup a
> Beowulf cluster.
>
> 20 Nodes, 512M Ram, 2 36G hard disks, 24 port switch.
>
> We are going to use it to research cluster management packages under
> Linux/Freebsd.
>
> The question I have for you guys:
>
> Any good benchmarks programs to try?
> Any good cluster management apps?
> Any good reason to choose PVM over MPI? (I am leaning toward MPI.)
> Any fun things, as in, stupid beowulf tricks, I should try?
>
> --
> 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"
--
++ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | sgi ++
++ John Unekis | 11785 Beltsville Dr #1300 ++
++ Customer Education | Beltsville, MD 20705 ++
++ Customer and Prof. Services | tel# 301.572.3141 ++
==============4A033D5D414776D9530CF27F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<br>Have you looked at SGI's Advanced Clustering Environment (ACE) for
Linux?
<p><A
HREF="http://www.sgi.com/software/ace/linux.html">http://www.sgi.com/software/ace/linux.html</A>
<p>There's training and support available...
<br>
<p>mlw wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I have convinced the people, with which I currently
work, to setup a
<br>Beowulf cluster.
<p>20 Nodes, 512M Ram, 2 36G hard disks, 24 port switch.
<p>We are going to use it to research cluster management packages under
<br>Linux/Freebsd.
<p>The question I have for you guys:
<p>Any good benchmarks programs to try?
<br>Any good cluster management apps?
<br>Any good reason to choose PVM over MPI? (I am leaning toward MPI.)
<br>Any fun things, as in, stupid beowulf tricks, I should try?
<p>--
<br>Mohawk Software
<br>Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
<br>Visit <a href="http://www.mohawksoft.com">http://www.mohawksoft.com</a>
<br>"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered
the
<br>lobster"</blockquote>
<pre>--
++ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
+sgi
+ ++
++ John
+Unekis
+ | 11785 Beltsville Dr #1300 ++
++ Customer
+Education
+| Beltsville, MD
+20705 ++
++ Customer and Prof. Services | tel#
+301.572.3141
+ ++</pre>
</html>
==============4A033D5D414776D9530CF27F==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Barris)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 23:26:18 GMT
In article <8gbv1p$h4i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or they could just tough out this DOJ PR railroad case and win with
> real justice in the appealate courts and forget about this whole thing
> and watch their stock rise higher than before this whole BS?
>
> The DOJ wants/needs a victory over big-business. They've been marginally
> successful with big-tobacco and with big-firearms.
>
> They need a BIG victory. MS was an easy target as there is no real
> precedence set in software industry trials or dealing with intellectual
> property and rights of innovation.
>
> So, they set up a talking head half-dead judge that will do whatever they
> say and railroad the whole trial and get their win. Yeah! Liberals win
> another battle over all those mean capitalist pig-dogs! Elect Al Gore!
> He'll punish all those mean big businesses! First software, next guns and
> tobacco!
>
> Appealate courts usually don't play politics and get down to law and justice,
> which is why MS is holding out for the appeal, because they know they'll win.
>
Couldn't be that MS actually did anything wrong eh ?
Rob
------------------------------
From: "Edwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:49:57 -0500
David D. Huff Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Instead of taking a beating across the board. Might M$ stand a better
> chance of survival if it breaks up voluntarily then some part of the
> business could survive. The last couple of days they've been taking
> quite a beating in the stock market. Along with a lot of peoples'
> retirement money. Shouldn't the stockholders demand that they bite the
> bullet now and salvage what they can?
> They should split on their own terms, not what the government dictates.
> Thus ensuring themselves their best chance for survival. Three parts may
> be better than two, diversifying their cumulative losses.
If you truly believe that Microsoft's survival is in jeapordy, you're living
in a fool's paradise.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: "Mike Ruskai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Mike Ruskai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 23:41:13 GMT
On Mon, 22 May 2000 16:59:56 GMT, David D. Huff Jr. wrote:
>Instead of taking a beating across the board. Might M$ stand a better
>chance of survival if it breaks up voluntarily then some part of the
>business could survive. The last couple of days they've been taking
>quite a beating in the stock market. Along with a lot of peoples'
>retirement money. Shouldn't the stockholders demand that they bite the
>bullet now and salvage what they can?
>They should split on their own terms, not what the government dictates.
>Thus ensuring themselves their best chance for survival. Three parts may
>be better than two, diversifying their cumulative losses.
If AT&T is any indicator, the split could actually benefit the stock
holders quite a bit.
Where there was once a single successful company (AT&T), there are now
several - AT&T itself, the baby Bells, and now Lucent Technologies (which
inherited Bell Labs).
Faced with genuine competition and realistic market forces, two companies
split from MS may start to develop quality products.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: 22 May 2000 19:53:43 -0400
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>I think that the argument of X being able to 'bring down a system' would be
>better served on a newsgroup like comp.os.unix.interfaces, no?
>Newgroup it and see what happens.
You'd get the likes of Dave C. Lawrence, Stan Kalisch III, and the rest
of the net.stalkers and other assholes from news.admin.net-abuse.misc on
your ass, that's what would happen.
--
Have you re-installed your operating system today?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:04:19 GMT
Mark Robinson wrote:
>
> In article <yEiW4.2672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > R. Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8gc3dh$qt8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Appealate courts usually don't play politics and get down to law and
> > justice,
> >> >which is why MS is holding out for the appeal, because they know
> >> >they'll
> > win.
> >>
> >> Ummmm....lemmme guess...another newsgroup.lawyer, right?
> >
> > The appeals court has overturned *EVERY* decision this judge has made
> > against MS in the past. A normal person might wonder how an objective
> > jurist might get that kind of record.
>
> Appeal courts should not be looking at past decisions of judges to decide
> whether to overturn.
Yeah. We wouldn't want them setting a "prescedent" for such actions of
looking back on former cases, now would we?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
Date: 22 May 2000 20:13:51 -0400
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>. wrote:
>> Canoscan scanner parallel port attached.
>
>> Try running the scanner identification program that Sane uses.
>
>> Kills Linux completely...No other terminals to log into. Can't kill X
>> server. Completely dead.......Red Switch Time....
>
>Hmmm...
>
>Alright, theres one (1) way to kill a linux machine.
>
I'll give you another way that doesn't require special software. Run
the following command as root:
yes > /dev/kmem &
This should cause a Kernel Panic.
--
Have you re-installed your operating system today?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 18:50:30 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>As an example, car companies frequenly provide circumstances in which their
>warranty will be voided if they do things which can cause the product to
>malfunction. Example, putting in unapproved motor oil. Since GM can't
>modify their engines to prevent unapproved motor oil from being added to
>their cars, their only choice is to void the warranty.
Your reaching for a way out of your box. -- You have to really search hard to
buy oil that does not meet the Mil. specs., which is all that any auto can
require -- and if they don't; if they try to specify anything else they have
to provide it FREE under law. What do you say we apply the same warranty
standards to M$?
How much is M$ paying you to come here and replay the same stupid arguments
that they tried in court and lost with?
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 23 May 2000 00:16:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just like W2K Datacenter...
Except that it actually exists. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 23 May 2000 00:18:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:2%cW4.37566$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <lcaW4.2578$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Windows 2000 has much fewer limitations and has commercial products
>> > capable of up to 32 processors. I imagine that 64 bit NT will be able
>> > to scale even further.
>> >
>> Sure.... What will it scale to? The x86 is 32bit so a 64bit OS won't be
>> worth a damn. The Alpha? Not any more Compaq pulled the plug on that.
>> Itanium? Not due until 2002 and even then Linux is almost ready now.
> Actually, Itanium is due at the end of this year (though it will likely be
> early next).
Yes yes yes...due due due....its coming out any time now! no really! just
you wait!
Datacenter doesnt exist. It may never exist. You may want to build your
arguments from things that have a bit of reality to them.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant W. Petty)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: 23 May 2000 00:11:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Try Linux, that is all I ask. Try Suse, Caldera, Redhat,
>Mandrake,Slackware, Corel, whatever, for yourself.
>
>Try it and compare it to the Windows that you now use. A current
>edition of Windows, not Windows 95 or 98 without updates. This is a
>favorite trick of the LinoScrews, to compare a current version of
>Linux to an outdated version of Windows. Terry "The porter" Porter is
>an expert at this method.
>
>
>Try Linux, please try it. Decide for yourself. And then please come
>back here and post your experiences with Linux.
>
My experience seems to be different from that of most people in this
NG. Most people posting here seem to hate Windows and love Linux
unconditionally, or vice versa. Or they only know Windows and
therefore just don't "get" Linux. All of the arguing (and
namecalling) I see going on in here seems to revolve around
perceptions of which OS is "better", but each OS's advocates have
their own mutually incompatible definitions of "better."
In my own experience, Linux and Windows today are like apples and
oranges, and fulfill entirely different functions, and it makes no
sense to debate their relative merits unless the context of the
comparison is clearly spelled out.
Bottom line:
It is just as unreasonable to expect secretaries and accountants
to appreciate the advantages of Linux in its current form as it is to
expect programmers and scientists (like me) to want to use Windows for
their heavy-duty computing.
Thus, I use both Windows *and* Linux all the time, but not
interchangeably.
Here's when I use Windows:
1) When I want to use an important commercial software app (e.g.,
Quicken, Cubase, Photoshop, MathCad) that simply doesn't exist in
comparable form for the Linux environment yet. There are many, many
such apps, and I don't see Linux catching up any time soon.
2) When I want to knock out a fairly simple and short document (like a
a memo or a letter) for which a WYSIWYG point-and-click interface can
save time and mental energy.
3) When one of my colleagues sends me a Word, Powerpoint, or Excel
document to read or edit, assuming (like so many people do) that
"everyone" uses MS Office as their default document preparation
environment.
Here's when I use Linux/Unix:
1) In a word, any situation not covered above. More specifically:
2) Whenever I have a need for scripts, batch processing, sophisticated
filename globbing, or what have you in order to efficiently perform
repetitive custom tasks on a large number of files. To my knowledge,
there are no fully satisfactory equivalents in Windows (or DOS) to the
Linux/Unix "find", "grep", "sed", "cat", "cut", "paste", "make",
"sort", commands. I use these utilities literally ALL THE TIME and
miss them terribly when forced to work under Windows/DOS. Those that
do exist under DOS were usually copied from UNIX and are often
crippled by comparison. In fact, DOS is frustrating for me precisely
because it is so obviously derived from UNIX but fails to include some
of UNIX's most important functionality.
3) Whenever I need to prepare a longer and/or more complex document
(e.g., a book or scientific article), in which case EMACS coupled with
LaTeX is VASTLY more efficient and intuitive (and therefore less
frustrating) for me than Word, and results in much more
professional-looking, self-consistent typeset documents to boot.
Having said that, I have no illusions that my secretary would ever get
comfortable with the EMACS/ LaTeX combination, because it requires a
far more abstract and, yes, intellectual approach to document
preparation than most people without advanced degrees are prepared to
deal with.
4) Whenever I write (strictly non-commercial) C or Fortran programs
for modeling or for data display and analysis. The only reasonably
satisfactory programming environments I have experienced under Windows
are those that copy, with varying degrees of success, the native
programming environment (system libraries, "make", etc.) that has
already existed in Unix/Linux, irrespective of platform, for decades.
I feel the vast majority of casual and clerical computer users
probably have NO need to do (2) through (4) and never will.
Consequently, as much as I prefer Linux/Unix to Windows for my own
daily use (for practical, aesthetic, and philosophical reasons), I can
also see no reason why Linux would ever become a threat to Windows'
dominance in the general market UNLESS (1) someone finds a way to
reduce the number of really important commercial (or
commercial-quality) apps that AREN'T available for Linux platforms,
including full-featured word processor and spreadsheet apps that are
100% compatible with what most of the rest of the world is using
(i.e., currently MS Office), and (2) future Linux packages can be
installed, configured, customized, and utilized as easily (from the
perspective of the average computer-illiterate user) as Windows.
I would personally love to drop Windows altogether, but I can't. The
optimal compromise for me at the moment is to run VMware under Linux,
which allows me to run MS-Windows on a "virtual PC" in its own window
on the same machine, concurrently with Linux.
- Grant
--
**** Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT address in header! *****
Grant W. Petty |Assoc. Prof., Atmospheric Science
Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences |Voice: (765)-494-2544
Purdue University, West Lafayette IN |Fax: (765)-496-1210
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:32:11 -0700
On Mon, 22 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> R. Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8gc3dh$qt8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >Appealate courts usually don't play politics and get down to law and
> justice,
> > >which is why MS is holding out for the appeal, because they know they'll
> win.
> >
> > Ummmm....lemmme guess...another newsgroup.lawyer, right?
>
> The appeals court has overturned *EVERY* decision this judge has made
> against MS in the past. A normal person might wonder how an objective
> jurist might get that kind of record.
One out of a total of One.
> The keyword there is generally. The fact that the judges findings of fact
> are almost word for word taken from the governments filings, and has very
> easily proven falsehoods in it could very well sway an appeals or supreme
> court into deciding that the findings of fact were biased.
You are thinking like a nutcase:
Disagreeing with MS's stories doesn't prove the Judge was biased. He is
not on trial. Disregarding MS shows the Judge found them to be Not
credible - a basic functon of a trial judge. All Appeals have to accept
his finding of fact - PERIOD.
> > B) Jackson was Republican appointee, rather friendly to business.
>
> Irrelevant.
Relevant - the rant was political thus his appointment is relevant.
> > C) Anyone who calls the tobacco cases marginally succuessful
> > isnt't really on the same planet.
>
> The tobacco cases are about greed and getting governors re-elected and
> attorney generals elected governor. Coincidentally, the majority of state
> Attorneys General in the case were running for governor at the time they
> filed the case. Can anyone say "publicity"?
Then you admit the cases are POPULAR. The cases are successful and
popular regardless of your slanted opinions about the motivations.
Make like Microsoft and Split.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 02:28:48 +0200
Yannick wrote:
>
> I thought (and I thought it was proved by one of my tests, but I may have made a
>mistake)
> that the fact that httpd is running as nobody/nobody prevents write access to files
> owned by joesmith/websitegroup (if the permissions, are, say, rw-rw-r--), even
> when nobody is member of websitegroup, because I thought in linux you belonged
> to only one group at a time during execution, am I wrong ?
AFAIK the GID bit on the directory makes the process primary group
become temporarily same as directory group.
However we've been reminded that we're not in the right NG for those
topics.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
40139 Bologna (Italy)
------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:31:07 GMT
Edwin I think beyond M$, I happen to care about some of the people whom have
lost a great deal of their retirement funds due to this single minded lunacy of
M$. There has to be a time and a place to draw the line. Survival may have been
a poor choice of words, because M$ zealots can only construe my meanings in one
way. Consider M$ dominance survival, somebody needs to lead, M$ is definitely a
poor choice I'd agree.
Put another way Edwin, how about if I said the survival of M$ dominance may be
at stake. Would that appease you?
Would you not agree that M$ would be stronger if it defined the lines of a
breakup instead of a panel?
What about the survival of pension funds that are going down the tubes. Should
brokers continue to allow their clients money to continue to erode?
Think about the people.. ok .. when is enough, enough?
Edwin wrote:
> David D. Huff Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Instead of taking a beating across the board. Might M$ stand a better
> > chance of survival if it breaks up voluntarily then some part of the
> > business could survive. The last couple of days they've been taking
> > quite a beating in the stock market. Along with a lot of peoples'
> > retirement money. Shouldn't the stockholders demand that they bite the
> > bullet now and salvage what they can?
> > They should split on their own terms, not what the government dictates.
> > Thus ensuring themselves their best chance for survival. Three parts may
> > be better than two, diversifying their cumulative losses.
>
> If you truly believe that Microsoft's survival is in jeapordy, you're living
> in a fool's paradise.
------------------------------
From: "Edwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split
Save It?)
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:45:57 -0500
Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snip]>
> Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating,
According to Goodwin's law, this thread is officially dead. Move along
folks. No thread to see here.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:49:14 -0700
On Mon, 22 May 2000 17:46:32 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>R. Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8gc3dh$qt8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Appealate courts usually don't play politics and get down to law and
>justice,
>> >which is why MS is holding out for the appeal, because they know they'll
>win.
>>
>> Ummmm....lemmme guess...another newsgroup.lawyer, right?
>
>The appeals court has overturned *EVERY* decision this judge has made
>against MS in the past. A normal person might wonder how an objective
>jurist might get that kind of record.
But you're not a normal person. To you, MS walks on water, and in
respect to anything this judge says or does you will follow MS's take
on the issue. I really don't remember MS complaining when this Judge
okayed the 1995 consent decree - maybe that should have been
overturned? It might be more meaningful if the scope, magnitude and
number of these decesions were listed instead of just shouting EVERY.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: HP-UX vs. Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:44:53 GMT
On 18 May 2000 16:49:29 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd recommend either Linux or BSD.
>
>That's a foregone conclusion; anyone even considering Linux on a
>128-way (or even 32-way) SMP box should have their head examined. :)
Especially when motherboards and boxes are so cheap.
You could build 64 dual SMP linux boxes for 1/20th the cost of a 128
processor HP machine. It would be a shitload faster too.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The future...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:46:22 GMT
On Fri, 19 May 2000 20:06:51 GMT, Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Windows is decadent. Anyone can see this.
>
> But this does not mean Microsoft can't switch to open
>standars model. They can even develop a Unix clone, be
>it Linux or not.
Microsoft can't switch to open standards unless they define them and
insure that no-one else has any say. :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
