Linux-Advocacy Digest #656, Volume #26 Tue, 23 May 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (josco)
Re: Linux fails - again (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Marty)
Re: HP-UX vs. Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Matt Gaia)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: rdram: WIll is speed up a linux box? (Ray)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary
Split Save It?)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 10:32:55 +1000
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Edwin wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> And how is this "law" enforced? What happens if I keep posting to
> this thread?
We sic Tholen onto you.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:26:18 -0700
On Tue, 23 May 2000, Se�n � Donnchadha wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>
> >
> >It could be, you know, that they put up a weak defense because that's all
> >they had. Just maybe.
> >
>
> In my mind there's absolutely no doubt about that. Microsoft put up a
> very weak defense. That doesn't mean, however, that they won't come up
> with a better one the next time around.
Collateral estoppel:
Once proven to be an abusive monopolist, all other lawsuits can build off
that finding. MS cannot be tried twice for the same offense, they also
cannot undue the facts in thei case.
MS is also burdened with arguing consistently. They cannot change stories
case to case. They are being pinned down and cannot come out with Defense
Version 3.0.
> Microsoft has a history of screwing up early on, then miraculously
> pulling decisive victory out of the jaws of seemingly inevitable
> defeat. Count them out prematurely, and more often than not your days
> are numbered.
That doesn't work in courts where the facts are not tossed out and a fresh
start is given in each case. Defense Version 3.0 must be backwards
compatible with Defense version 1.0 and 2.0. MS's backwards compatibility
problems are legendary.
MS's problems in this case are part of the record. Their status as a
monopolist is established - legally -- when the judge rules and a finding
of fact is robust. If say SUN were to sue MS. MS would be burdened to
defend as a monopolist - that is a heavy burden in the case of fighting
over JAVA with triple damages. What MS says in te SUN case has to match
what MS said in the Anti-trust case and etc.
> One thing I've never understood is why they didn't put former
> antitrust chief Charles Rule up on the stand. Of all the pro-Microsoft
> arguments, as a layman I've always found his the most convincing.
> Hopefully they'll consider it for the appeal.
Why is he a witness? What did he witness or how did he participate in
windows/IE or MS's business? What facts could he establish that would help
MS? None really - he might be a smart guy but he isn't relevant to
establishing the facts of the case.
Rule's utility would be in advising a strategy for defense, not in
providing evidence about browsers or operating systems. In that regard,
those who advised MS were ignored or gave bad advice. I pick Ignored.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:14:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 22 May 2000 13:55:59 GMT, Peter Espen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>real name. You also obviously have a real lame network setup evidenced
>by the fact that you are still using a SCO systems. Also you are
And just what's so bad about SCO? I may not like their licensing scheme very
much, but their software seems to be quite capable.
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 01:31:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Of course if you really want NT-like permissions, then you should go
> for ACL's. There are patches (for the kernel and file system utils)
> at http://acl.bestbits.at/ for ACL support.
And if you poke around in NT, there is (used to be) a command called
something like "setacls". With no options will show the access control
lists for NT objects in a very *NIX-like way. I actually preferred it
over the point-and-click approach because I could do mass changes with
just a few lines in a script. No trivial matter when you have thousands
of users. Hope MSFT haven't taken that away....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 01:59:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
' >It makes no difference to an end user what the source license is.
'
' It does make a difference when it makes it impossible to use.
'
' >The Regents of University of California, Berkley choose their
' >license. I get to choose mine.
'
' I'm not arguing about your right to do whatever you want, I
' am just saying that I don't understand what motivates you
' to create a situation where I can download code, have it
' on my machine and use it in any way I want, but only in
' cases where I can do the linking myself. If another needed
' component is controlled by someone else with an equal
' right to choose their license, I won't be able to obtain
' and use the combination together.
Ok, now I am really confused. Could you please give me some example
of where you have two pieces of code that you want to use together,
but can't because of license restrictions?
On my machines, I have code with quite a variety of licenses. Those
include GPL, BSD, QPL, Perl's Artistic License, the TCL license, and a
bunch of others. The base system is GNU/Linux. A bunch of libraries
in use are either GPL or LGPL, including libc.
Have I violated someone's license?
I am not trying to create a situation where you or anyone else can't
use code that I write or code that is derived from code that I write.
I am trying to avoid the situation where improvements to my code are
not returned to me or to others. The whole point of FSF style free
software is to advance the state of the art by not shackling code with
proprietary licensing.
If there is a better way to achieve this goal, please tell me about
it.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
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
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 02:00:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
' In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
' David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
'
' >Then again, InstallSheild, possibly the best installer in Windows
' >land, is even worse. Go figure.
' >
' >Do people really have trouble with ./configure, make, make install?
' >It has _never_ been a problem for me. Maybe I am just lucky. Even
' >though I changed my compiler, libc, and libtools.
'
' Given a thousand packages, how long does it take you to be sure
' you have the latest version of each installed using this
' technique? How long does it take to figure out what is missing
' when the linker can't resolve a symbol?
RPM is no better at telling me that I have the latest version. When I
go get the source, I look for the latest stable release. The README
file generally tells you where to get the latest version. The INSTALL
file generally tells you what you need on your system already.
I've not had any problems yet. Once a core system is in place,
installing some other package is generally hassle free. It is also
not difficult to modify the core system. I've recompiled libc, the
compiler, and the kernel on my system with out any problems. Nothing
stoped working. The machine did not explode.
I don't use a thousand different packages. If I did, perhaps I would
want something better. Then again, the complexity of the system does
not seem to grow much as packages are added. This is because there
are conventions about where files should go that most packages adhere
too.
I'm happy that Linux gives me the choice of using source distributions
or rpms. Some systems don't give you that choice.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Wed, 24 May 2000 02:12:15 GMT
josco wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Tue, 23 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > > For someone so hung up on the correct spelling of things, you can't even
> > > > bother to spell someones name correctly.
> ^^^^^^^^ ???
> > > > I think that about sums it up.
> > >
> > > Are you NOW telling me your use of OLE1 and OLE2 were mistakes and
> > > misspellings?
> >
> > Does it matter how they're spelled?
>
> Oh, yes. Changing the spelling was your way to explain one of your lies.
>
> Your nonsense use of OLE2 and OLE1 assert these are different APIs, not
> different vesions of the same API, OLE.
>
> > You seem to have the hangup about it, yet when you can't even bother to
> > spell a persons name right, it just makes you a hipocrite.
>
> No more than your misspelling "someone's" in your complaint makes you a
> hipocrite.
>
> I'm correcting your chronic misuse and abuse of the OLE acronymn to
> justify a lie about OLE's origin. I think I made my point and won because
> you're on a new track - Erik.
Just for the record, while we're correcting misspellings, it's "hypocrite".
Carry on.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: HP-UX vs. Linux
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 02:05:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ben =?iso-8859-1?Q?Chauss=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do you know what is best between HP-UX and Linux. We want to create a
> web server, and we would like to know what is best does two one ????
I admin^H^H^H^H^H endured HP-UX for nearly five years. HP-UX is an MPE
programmer's nightmarish vision of what UNIX should have been, and it
has ultimately managed to combine the worst features of both. We
referred to it lovingly as "hockey-pucks", and joked about how apropos
the OS acronym would have been if Packard's name had preceded Hewlett's
in the company. Upgrades and patches are absolute hell. Package
management is worse than any Linux distribution.
The "one good thing"(TM) about HP-UX is HP support. Absolutely stellar,
and probably the single factor keeping HP-UX from extinction.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Wed, 24 May 2000 02:20:04 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-lyKlK7H8PjmR@localhost...
> > > 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.
>
> Did you run MS-DOS in the VDM? Or were you using the OS/2 DOS?
It requires OS/2's VDM (which is not a full implementation of DOS per se, just
a set of "device drivers" which vector calls back to OS/2 native calls). If
you attempted to run a VMB (virtual machine boot) session, booting up a true
MS-DOS session inside of OS/2, and then try to run Win3.1, if memory serves
me, it will only run in standard mode as it will try to grab control of the
A20 line in enhanced mode and fail due to protection. Karel, can you verify
this?
OS/2's VDM, however, handles it perfectly. Actually, come to think of it, if
you load up the supplementary drivers in the VMB session, like
x:\os2\mdos\himem.sys (which is 445 bytes and only contains code to vector
back to OS/2 system calls), it may work in the VMB session.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 24 May 2000 02:30:43 GMT
Mark Robinson wrote:
>
> In article <392a61d6$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In <KnnW4.37627$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/23/00 Mark
> > Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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?
> >
> >>No, they should evaluate based on merit decided on a case-by-case basis.
> >
> > If this is what you want, you shouldn't be living here. Law doesn't work
> > this way, never has, never will.
>
> That's why I don't. Using a decision made a judge in the past to decide
> on a different decision is is very stupid. Luckily the real world doesn't
> look like that.
If someone was convicted of robbery 5 times and is on trial for robbery a
sixth time, this should definitely be taken into consideration. Does that
mean he is automatically guilty? Of course not. Does that mean he should be
punished quite harshly if convicted? Absolutely. Does that make it likely
that he is guilty? Yes, and a strong case would have to be made to show how
circumstances were different this time around.
In this particular case, is the corporation under different leadership? Has
the corporation's strategy changed since the previous cases? Was the
corporation in the same strategic position to be able to perform similar
actions?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 02:33:41 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Edwin wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > And how is this "law" enforced? What happens if I keep posting to
> > this thread?
>
> We sic Tholen onto you.
Illogical, as Tholen responds of its own free will.
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 22:45:22 -0400
Isn't that the general Microsoft motto?
Do something like shit now, and tell everyone that you'll do a better job
next time.
>In my mind there's absolutely no doubt about that. Microsoft put up a
>very weak defense. That doesn't mean, however, that they won't come up
>with a better one the next time around.
>
------------------------------
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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 03:01:12 GMT
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do people really have trouble with ./configure, make, make install?
> It has _never_ been a problem for me. Maybe I am just lucky. Even
> though I changed my compiler, libc, and libtools.
That precise process usually works out fine. However, a number of
these processes require manual modification of the Makefile or a
custom configuration file. I've also encountered several configure
scripts that break, and when that happens, you're doomed to rewriting
the Makefile by hand. And there are still a few programs that just
provide you with a grab-bag of Makefiles, and you get to pick which
one you want. Those are *always* disasters, but usually the Makefiles
are at least short enough that fixing them isn't impossible.
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Subject: Re: rdram: WIll is speed up a linux box?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 03:03:43 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 16:49:19 -0500, john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How can the latency be longer if the bus now has a faster clock? I dont
>understand this. It seems to me that the bandwidth should stay the same but
>that the latency should be better on the i820 chipset.
Part of the reason for the higher latency is the more complex memory
controler circuitry required for RDRAM. As for bandwidth, if the RDRAM bus
was 64bits like with SDRAM than the bandwidth would be much higher but it's
only 16 bits wide so it needs a much higher clock to even break even.
--
Ray
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
