Linux-Advocacy Digest #236, Volume #28 Sat, 5 Aug 00 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ???? (abraxas)
Re: Linux, easy to use? ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Linux, easy to use? ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Courageous)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Loren Petrich)
Preconfigured Linux Systems - Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than
W2k (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
Date: 5 Aug 2000 03:14:14 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote in <8mf2k0$159g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Wrong. It would have been correct if you had said "linux doesnt support
>>as many sound cards as windows 2000 does" or something along those lines,
>>but it most certianly supports orders of magnitudes more hardware than
>>any kind of windows does.
>
> I don't believe you.
>
Linux runs on sun, sgi, ibm, amiga, palmtops, pc, mac, etc. etc. etc.
Windows only runs on PC hardware.
The winner is clearly linux.
> "Pasty"?
>
Indeed.
> Why should I stop posting? Who appointed _you_ moderator of COLA?
>
1. because I said so
2. this is not a moderated newsgroup.
> Incidentally, what is your name?
Find it yourself. Its not terribly difficult.
> Care to post it? Or are you too cowardly
> to even do that?
Contrary to your most uninformed belief, I am not anonymous. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 13:14:40 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim (little boy) Palmer
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Or you can get Windo's and not half to ty[e annything at all.
>>>
>>
>>I don't have to ty[e anything on Linux, either. In fact, I can't
>>remember the last time I ty[ed anything, on any OS.
>
> Lier. You tipe every time you log in.
Irrelevant, given that I never claimed otherwise, Tim. Meanwhile,
you still haven't provided any evidence that Windows users don't
have to ty[e anything.
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 13:15:47 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> lier \ly-er\ m. a iddiot that tells lies all the time.
m? made up word?
Slava
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 03:16:41 GMT
> > How about posting your SED script then? let's see how clever you are...
>
> If i did that, that would reveal what I'm actually using.
So?
> but, here's a sample line:
>
> s/___real_header_field/Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
But this would be a royal pain in the ass to use if, say,
you were actually using Win 98, now wouldn't it? The real
question is what possible motivation could you have for
informing the world that you're using Win98 if you're not???
C//
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 5 Aug 2000 03:19:43 GMT
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 19:33:39 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> As a PhD student in math, I'm hardly "high income" or "low intelligence".
>>
>> In other words, the above is just plain false.
>
>Read _The_Bell_Curve_ and get back to me.
That's like Petrich saying "read Marx and get back to me". Cite all the
propoganda you like.
>Yes, students tend to have a low income...because students
>are STUDENTS, not full-time employees working in the field of
>their chosen specialty.
Part time employees working in fields in which they are highly qualified
( namely teaching ).
>You claim that your current income is $7,500/year. If you chose
>to drop out of your PhD program today, what do you think your
>income would be?
Admittedly several times higher than that
>My bet is somewhere around $80,000 provided you aren't majoring
>in Psychology (would you like fries with that?), History, or
>Medicine.
Math. BTW, it might surprise you to learn that medical research gets a lot
of funding.
>> >2. Intelligence is genetically linked. Correlation > 0.5 (where
>> > a correlation of 1.0 is absolute correlation)
>>
>> (a) How do you measure "genetically linked",
>
>Measure the correlation between identical twins who have been
>seperated since birth vs. correlation between identical twins
>who have lived together from birth to adulthood
I don't know where to begin with the problems here. First, how do you
justify extrapolating from twins to the population ? Secondly, you're
going to have a hard time finding test subjects.
Thirdly, how do you know that the type of people who adopt the twin are
independent of genetic factors ?
>> (c) What does "smart" mean anyway ? Your measure of "smart"
>> could also be flawed.
>
>Don't be so stupid....it's unbecoming.
No, it's not. The problem is that you only prove something about how
people perform on your test. ( that's being optimistic and assuming
that your test didn't have obvious flaws in the first place )
>And orphaned children of low-income adults tend to perform
>at lower levels than orphaned children of high-income adults.
But the fact that they're orphaned doesn't isolate genetics as
an independent variable.
>> >The less intelligent you are, the poorer you are.
>> >The less intelligent you are, the less intelligent your kids will be.
>>
>> The relationship is nowhere near as deterministic as you naively believe.
>
>Occasional exceptions do not invalidate the rule. You know this,
But occasional exceptions do invalidate the practice of prejudging
someone on the merits of their parents.
>> If it was as rigid as you seem to think, you most certainly wouldn't
>> be earning 2-5 times as much as I am.
>
>Maybe I'm smarter than you.
>he heh ehhe
Insufficient. You need to make a case that you're 2-5 times as smart as me.
If you were, we probably wouldn't be having this argument right now.
>Quit setting up straw-man arguments. It makes you look as
>if you are losing.
Oops. I should apologise if I have mislead anyone (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 5 Aug 2000 03:35:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> The only ideologically pure Communist country left is North Korea;
>> the others have been afflicted by various degrees of creeping capitalism.
>It's a charade. I've been to Russia on 3 occassions, and there is
>no capitalism happening there. You can't have capitalism without
>property rights, and the Duma absolutely refuses to enact such laws.
ROTFL. There is plenty of capitalism in Russia; what direct
evidence is there that it's fakery? I mean *direct* evidence.
>Golytsin has been predictions ever since he defected in 1961.
Where are his 1961 predictions?
>> However, it's that year, and the Russian-Chinese combined
>> Communist goverment still has not taken over. The Russian Communists are
>> not a branch of government anymore but are only another political party,
>> and while China is still officially Communist, it suffers from a severe
>> case of creeping capitalism and it has been unable to take over Taiwan.
>They are all part of the same international movement.
George Orwell was *much* smarter than this. He recognized that
Commies could fight each others fiercely, and history has borne this out.
>> A plan 40 years in the making? They could have implemented it in
>> the 1960's.
>It's more effective if there's a LONG period of adversarial
>relations. It fools the observers into imagining the "change"
>to be bigger than it actually is.
And waste an incredible amount of time.
>> So what? However, in Russia nowadays, several parties compete for
>> votes, where before, there was only one.
>It's theater on a grand stage, you moron.
Is there any *direct* evidence of some command center that is
orchestrating the seeming multiparty center? If there was, it would have
come out long ago; consider how many other scandals get revealed sooner
or later.
>The whole "Democracy and Capitalism" in Russia is a big fucking
>charade. Name ONE member of the Russian government who does
>not have current or prior membership in the Communist Party.
How many would there have had to be? The only way one's career
would have seriously advanced before the fall of the SU would be to be a
Party member. And my sister said of Yugoslavia that people had joined the
Party there to advance their careers, and I would not be surprised if the
SU was no different.
>> However, the loss of the Eastern European empire does not fit in
>> very well with such a strategy.
>Golitsyn details exactly HOW this *IS* part of the strategy.
Did he "predict" that in 1961 or 1991?
And that has to be the lamest strategy imaginable; Gorbachev was
unable to keep Germany from being "lost".
>> That strikes me as absurd beyond belief. Nobody has ever offered
>> documented proof of this conspiracy -- not even Golitsyn, it would seem.
>Predicting this whole charade 10 years before it happens, even
>naming East Germany as the place where it would start to "unravel"
>isn't proof?
It was Poland that the first cracks in the empire appeared, not
East Germany.
>> However, that has failed, with NATO advancing eastward into East
>> Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary.
>Or is this Soviet infiltration of NATO.
ROTFL. It's NATO that they are joining and not the Warsaw Pact,
which is now defunct.
>Golitsyn predicted in 1989 that this was one of the long-term
>goals of the Moscow government.
However, if there was serious question about which side they are
on, they would not have been allowed to join NATO.
>> Gorbachev is not the best possible hero -- he's disliked at home
>> and he let Eastern Europe run away.
>He's disliked for other reasons. He's disliked by the average
>Sergei-on-the-street for being a shill for the Communist party.
No, the average Iosip-in-the-street thinks that he was
incompetent. He's much better regarded abroad, however; I think that this
is because of which of Gorbachev's achievements they focus on: domestic
or foreign.
>> ROTFL. A book written in 1984 should have no trouble "predicting"
>> Solidarity's early years.
>Golitsyn defected in 1961. He made his initial predictions of
>the rise of such an organization back in the 1970's, backed up
>with KGB memos that he smuggled out with him when he escaped.
And where is this stuff archived?
>> Solidarity had been a clear *challenge* to the Polish
>> Government's authority.
>Only if you believe that the actors on the stage are truly
>engaged in a life or death struggle. ...
Here is the total amount of evidence of such a conspiracy that
has appeared in public:
{}
>> ANd making Russia seem like a weakling?
>Replacing 1000 circa 1949-1960 T-55 tanks with 2,500 T-80 tanks,
>launching 2 aircraft carriers, numerous landing craft designed for
>amphibious invasions, and completely replacing their ICBM fleet
>is hardly what one would call "weakness."
However, they'd have to send their armies a long way...
>> Which suggests some flaw in capitalism.
>No, it suggests that no matter where one travels, traitors
>like you can always be found, ready and EAGER to sell-out
>the freedom of their countrymen for a few dollars.
And also loons with weird conspiracy theories.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Preconfigured Linux Systems - Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable
than W2k
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 03:26:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:53:13 -0700, Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >[snips]
> >
> >"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8l7ei4$vte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> >Fine; find me a shipping machine from a volume commercial vendor -
> >Future Shop, Computer City, etc - that comes in such a configuration.
> >Not some backyard yokel selling third-hand machines, new machines
> > with full warranties and the works.
The Linux Connection (some folks who provide the PC connection) sell
Servers, Desktops, Laptops, and "Appliances" (Linux machines in unique
new packaging) preconfigured with Linux. The machines are produced by,
configured by, and supported by, IBM, Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, VA
Linux, and about 5 other smaller companies including one that makes
something called a "TuxTop" (Linux powered laptop), and a "TuxStation"
(Linux powered workstation).
IBM's new A20 and T20 are available through standard distribution
channels. The Netfinity Line is also supported.
The Compaq Deskpro EN and EP have been certified by LinuxCare.
Dell has 13 lines including the Dimension XPS T550, L550r,
Inpiron 7500, the Latitude CPx, the OptiPlex GX1, GX110, GX1P,
the Poweredge 1300, 2300, and the Precision workstation 410, 420, 610,
and 620 have also been certified.
The HP Brio BA400, BA410, and BA600, the e-Vectra, and the Kayak
XM600, XU800, and Vectra VL400 and VL600 are also certified.
Most of the machines mentioned above were also avalable in the
Linux catalogue.
Most of these companies invested quite a bit of effort to have
their machines certified. It seems like the "Big 4" at least,
have decided that Linux is a viable market.
A few companies are using Linux for commercial purposes:
http://www.m-tech.ab.ca/linux-biz/
I compared each machine to the equivalant Windows 98 configuration
in PC Connection. The Linux machines are roughy 15-25% more expensive
with preconfigured Linux. Appearantly many people are willing to pay
quite a bit extra to get a machine that in properly preconfigured
with Linux and known to allow a new install of Linux with minimal
trouble.
A number of new entrants that look NOTHING like traditional PCs are
also coming to the marketplace. Sony has a Linux powered PlayStation
(Linux has supported the MIPS chip for years). Nintendo seems to be
gearing up for this as well.
A number of vendors are using "very small footprint" packaging,
offering a Zip-drive sized machine with CD-ROM, internal hard
drive, ram, rom, video, keyboard, and ethernet, for very modest
prices. Some also include fire-wire or parallel ports.
There will probably also be a push to create binary-only "driver
modules" for complex-protocol USB devices such as cameras, scanners,
printers, Tape drives, and external hard drives.
> >Whoops, can't do it? Okay, so the _minimum_ machine you're likely
> >going to be able to buy off the shelf is about comparable to the one
I
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
