Linux-Advocacy Digest #458, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 19:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Joe Ragosta)
Re: It's official, Microsoft� porting applications to Linux ("John Hill")
Re: Star Trek Voyager (was: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's) (Craig
Kelley)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Linux Presidential Candidates? (Tim Kelley)
Spammers and such. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Craig Kelley)
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's ("KLH")
Re: Linux Presidential Candidates? (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:17:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Lars Tr�ger wrote:
> >Bob B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >You guys RUINED the NT Brand by over promising and giving it a bad
> >> >reputation as it was evaluated by standards to which it could not
> >> >achieve. NT was a good PC OS but boy was it over sold and MS had to
> >> >dump
> >> >the NT Brand to be taken seriously --
> >>
> >> Yes, NT was a failure in the marketplace and they had to change
> >> the name. Just like Apple OS 9 is a failure and they had to
> >> introduce OS X.
> >
> >Apple changed the name because it is a completely different OS.
>
> OS X is "OS ten" It's a minor change in name relative to the BSD roots
> of the
> OS.
I've wondered about that. They basically did three things by choosing OS
X:
1. Created a nomenclature which is going to be mispronounced. Regularly.
2. Made it look like OS X is only a one step change from Mac OS 9.x.
3. Made it effectively impossible to continue to improve Mac OS 9.x if
they choose to do so.
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft� porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:26:35 +0100
Milton wrote in message ...
>In a desperate attempt, to regain some legitimacy in the high-tech
>software arena, Microsoft� is letting a an experienced 3rd party,
>Mainsoft, port it's applications to the state of the art operating
>system, Linux.
>
>The results, so far, have been disappointing.
Could they be anything else ?
>
>Brought to you by Windows 2000 Magazine
>http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2874
>
>:)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Trek Voyager (was: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Aug 2000 15:30:41 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > One thing I am glad, they never got as bad as Voyager. Voyager should
> be
> > > subtitled "one series too many".
> >
> >
> > Voyager was good if you didn't think of it as a Star Trek spin-off.
>
> For me it lost a lot of its credibility in the first season. In the first
> episode it is stated that Voyager outclassed any ship in the delta
> quaderant. In terms of speed, fire power, and technology.
>
> In that first episode they first encountered a hostile alien race. Through
> out that first season they kept encountering that same race, not only the
> same race but the same individuals in that race and the same ships.
>
> Through out that season they kept talking about travling straight back home,
> but then given their superior speed they should not have been encountering
> the same ships and individuals unless they were flying in circles.
>
> In other seasons it is learned that the delta quaderant is the location of
> the home Borg and they are well know by the inhabitants there. Which
> invalidates the statement of their ship outclassing anything in the
> quaderant.
Geeez.. Talk about nit picking. :)
Voyager is just like any other form of entertainment (and any other
form of Star Trek), there are some good episodes and some bad ones.
Personally, I enjoyed DS9 the most of all the series; it actually
became somewhat of a soap opera, but it also allowed for much more
character development than the status-quo series (tos, tng, voy) where
most every episode had to leave the envoronment in the same condition
that it started with.
Voyager is kinda cool in that they can totally screw up the delta
quadrant and not be responsible for messing up the other trek
timelines; but they don't take advantage of that very often. I'm
looking forward the the season premeire; I've heard that they get home
this year...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:34:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Long ago, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered the following:
>What kind of dork would even *watch* shows such as:
>- Buffy, Vampire Slayer
>- Hercules
>- Pensacola - Wings of Gold
>- Sabrina
>- Sindbad
>- Tell
>- Thunder in Paradise
>- Xena
>- (to be continued)
>
>I can safely say that this is some of the worst garbage running on
>German TV. I've sampled all of those shows by watching half an episode
>or maybe an entire one.
>
>I can't imagine anything that would bore me sufficiently to watch
>several episodes.
>
If you aren't from the US you can truly be suprised by how boring living
here can get:-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:40:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Long ago, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered the following:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>Bob Hauck wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:11:05 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >In other words, Dad was right when he said, "These are the best days of
>>> >your life."
>>>
>>> Oh, no, he wasn't. Or at least, he doesn't have to be. I'm going to
>>> be 40 soon and wouldn't trade my life now for my life at 20. I'm much
>>> happier with my life, have a lot more money, and even feel better
>>> physically now compared with then (no more partying plus a good workout
>>> regimen made a huge difference in that last).
>>>
>>> Given that, I can stand not being up-to-date with "popular culture".
>>
>>Actually, mentally and financially I am much, much better off now than I
>>was at 20 (and that's only six years for me :-). But physically?
>>Yuck! At twenty I was working on a dairy/beef/crop farm and busting my
>>ass day in and day out. I would love to do that for a month a take off
>>a few of the pounds I've put on in the interim. I don't do well with
>>pointless exercise. But I would love to have something to 'do' that
>>made me exercise. I suppose when I get a nice house with an unfinished
>>basement I can 'exercise' by building the rooms I want. At least that
>>gives me something to look forward to in the physical fitness area.
>>
>I find that trying to round up my sheep on my own is pretty good...
>
>I'm 36 now, although I've never been especially interested in 'pop' culture.
>I do not, and have never, felt moved to do what marketing men tell me to,
>indeed, I tend to feel I should be out there explaining to the rest of the
>world that they don't have to either. Probably why I'm here dealing with
>msoft's droids...
Sounds like you and I would get along well in that respect. I never
fit into any 'demographic' growing up. I listened to heavy metal, but
didn't fit with the metal-heads 'cause I was too 'geeky', didn't fit
with the geeks 'cause I played guitar, didn't fit with the people that
played guitar 'cause I didn't smoke or drug myself up, didn't fit with
the . . . .
I guess that's one of the reasons I levitated into the Linux/BSD/*nix
arena so easily. It wasn't unusual for me to think of things a little
differently from the 'norm'. It just fit me.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:02:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> >One could just as easily argue that good copyright and trade secret
> >> >protection is necessary for companies to put the money into good
> >> >commercial software.
> >>
> >> I disagree. Are *you* arguing this? Because "one" might be able to
> >> argue it, and consider it 'easy', but "one" is unlikely to make much
> >> headway against more rational and reasoned arguments.
> >
> >Sure. I'll make that argument.
> >
> >There have been several inventions that my company has made that we were
> >only willing to work on because of the potential for intellectual
> >property protection.
>
> In other words, your company won't make a product if it can make a
> profit on it; it has to be able to profiteer (restrict access to it in
> order to charge exorbitant profits) or it isn't worth the investment.
> This is the standard mode of business today, and rather than being
> responsible for the wonders of the modern world, it merely takes
> advantage of it, and purports to take responsibility for it.
Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you don't have an ounce of
business experience.
Sometimes having intellectual property protection is the only way to
guarantee _any_ profit.
Furthermore, you're assuming that there are infinite resources
available. This is clearly false. If I have so many staff members,
they're going to work on projects that are the most profitable. If I can
justify adding people, I will do so, but only if the profits are high
enough to justify it.
Do yourself a favor--learn a bit about how business works before
spouting off.
>
> [...]
> >It's not about Microsoft. It's about intellectual property from every
> >company in the world.
>
> Its about proprietary trade secrets from every company that sells
> commercial software. It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellectual
> property. If you can't publish it and still earn a profit on it
> (relying on copyright law and value-for-cost to prevent piracy), then it
> isn't worth anything to begin with. Software is text, not machinery.
You don't think that trade secrets are intellectual property?
Again, do yourself a favor and learn a little about business before
making even more of a fool of yourself.
>
> >It's about the Stac electronics. It's about Mattel. It's about General
> >Motors. It's about duPont.
>
> No, it isn't; these companies (except probably Stac, and any software
> products the others may sell) do not sell trade secret licenses to
> copyrighted information.
Just about as far off topic as it could be.
Stac's business plan was selling software. If Microsoft had been allowed
to copy their algorithms freely (or if you got your way and Stac lost
intellectual property protection), they would never have been in
business long.
>
> [...]
> >> So long as it is not considered wrong to profiteer, it might certainly
> >> be easy to point out the "value proposition" in profiteering. To me,
> >> all three are generally equivalent; I use any of them only if I have
> >> to,
> >> and find them all relatively abominable.
> >
> >Perhaps they are. But there are no freeware or shareware equivalents.
> >That ought to tell you something.
>
> So long as *your* expectations are that a business has no obligation to
> act ethically , there is no way for ethical companies to compete. That
> ought to tell you something about why there aren't many ethical
> companies these days.
Only in the eyes of people like you who have bizarre definitions of
what's ethical.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Presidential Candidates?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:53:50 -0500
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the 16 Aug 2000 22:02:35 -0600...
> ...and Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -=Republican=-
> > www.bush2000.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 (proxy in use, no OS guess)
> >
> > -=Democrat=-
> > www.algore2000.com is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) PHP/4.0.1pl2
> > secured_by_Raven/1.5.1 on Linux
>
> For those people who are unfortunate enough to live in the USA,
> another reason not to vote Republican. -- I wish Nader would get
> elected, but of course that's completely unrealistic, so the best
> thing you all can do is choose the minor catastrophe over the major
> disaster and vote Gore.
Well nothing would ever change if everyone thought that way ...
unfortunately most of the american public does; the duopoly wants
you too.
I don't agree.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Spammers and such.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:02:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have been getting an awful lot of spam lately. Almost all of it is
coming from this newsgroup being scanned for email addies.
Anyway, I wanted to pose a question to the group to see if it's
something everyone has noticed. In the past couple of months, I keep
getting more and more spam. I didn't sign up for anything more (but
have posted a lot to this and a couple of other newsgroups), and I
haven't dealt with a lot of the companies in question. But, I have
noticed that the more recent spam attacks have been adding a line
about complying with all spamming laws and such. It's my assumption
they just put that line in there so that people 'think' they comply
with the law, when in fact they are just skirting it anyway.
My question is, has anyone else noticed this? And if so, is anyone
familiar with the law in question and whether or not they are actually
'fully complying' with said law? I'm just curious about this little
subject and wondered what the group had to say.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Aug 2000 16:14:07 -0600
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> In many cases programmers forgo implementing memory protection between
> threads but that's not the fault of the OS. It's the fault of the
> programmer. It's there if you want to take advantage of it.
Yes, but we have a choice under Linux of whether we want to
significantly add to our program's bulk, or to just use the one-line
fork() call. Forking is fairly scalable, but not as scalable as
threads in most situations. The problem is, 90% of the time (my time,
anyway) you don't care if the process is extremely scalable and you
can ditch a bunch of complexity by using processes instead.
> > Unix servers tend to have more memory protection ('cos
> > it is much cheaper to use processes, and they offer much more
> > isolation) so the problem bites far less.
>
> How much cheaper? Both OSs do essentially the same things when creating
> processes. I'd be interested to learn just how many processor cycles it
> takes each to create a simple "Hello, world." process. I'll wager that it
> is cheaper to create a thread on Windows than it is to create a process on
> UNIX. Since Windows threads CAN offer a similar degree of memory protection
> it would seem the more efficient route.
Historically (ie, Linux 2.0 vs NT 4) Linux has been much quicker at
context switches and process creations. I haven't seen any benchmarks
for 2000 vs. 2.4, but I would assume it's about the same. NT gains
ground by having massivly multi-threaded systems, whereas Linux tends
to choke up in this department because legacy apps don't use threads
like NT's do.
A Linux process actually is just a form of a thread; it takes almost
no time to create (copy-on-write memory helping out a lot). See the
clone(2) man pages for more information.
Also, for more information (again, not updated with the latest
offerings):
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue70/3184.html
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/developer/library/java2/index.html
[snip]
The current big idea in the threading wars is to have a good mix
between kernel and userland threads within a process (ala Solaris).
Time will tell what's best under certain situations.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:20:17 -0700
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8na5ch$akh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8na3qa$g8g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Please excuse the crossposting, but this involves the readers of all
> >three newsgroups.
> >
> >How many others here have recieved spam via email with the appearence of
> >being a follow up to threads in these newsgroups (COLA, COMA, and
> >COMNA) from this domain?
>
> I can't say that I have, but if it's incessant, you
> might want to consider forging your E-mail address,
> or creating a procmail script that will only allow
> E-mail in that you specify (ie: friends, and family).
>
> At least, that's what I did. :-) I have a forged
> E-mail address in my headers, and if someone does
> add my legit address to a mailing list of some sort,
> /dev/null will get a little snack.
>
> It's nice, because I can determine who the "friendlies"
> are, and add their names to the guest list, and I don't
> have to worry about getting E-mail from someone I don't
> want to hear from.
>
> >I run Linux, no bloody RedHat, Debian, Slackware, or Corel, just Linux.
> >My servers have been up 226 days 9 hours 57 minutes
>
> "N, C, C, one, seven, oh, one... no bloody A, B, C, or D."
Montgomery Scott, I forget the title of the episode. I think it starts with
an 'R'
>
> A thick cuban cigar goes to the man who can name this quote!...
Too bad I don't smoke....
>
> Anyone who ever like Star Trek: TNG in the slightest should
> be able to get this one.
>
> :-)
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
> | = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> | -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
> | | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
> |_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux Presidential Candidates?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Aug 2000 16:21:22 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
> It was the 16 Aug 2000 22:02:35 -0600...
> ...and Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -=Republican=-
> > www.bush2000.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 (proxy in use, no OS guess)
> >
> > -=Democrat=-
> > www.algore2000.com is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) PHP/4.0.1pl2
> > secured_by_Raven/1.5.1 on Linux
>
> For those people who are unfortunate enough to live in the USA,
> another reason not to vote Republican. -- I wish Nader would get
> elected, but of course that's completely unrealistic, so the best
> thing you all can do is choose the minor catastrophe over the major
> disaster and vote Gore.
Actually, I was talking with my 1-year-old last night about who to
vote for and the only contention between Gore and Bush seems to be
the abortion issue. On every other plank, they seem to agree and
only have minor differences. For all real issues Gore == Bush.
They're both the "education" presidents, the "economy" presidents, the
"domestic" presidents, etc. etc. etc. etc.
At least Nader stands up for what he believes in.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
