Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Spammers and such.
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Richard)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates)
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Richard)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: there are plenty of good paradigms (Richard)
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux Presidential Candidates? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Spammers and such.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:08:53 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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.
I have noticed this as well. I have not responded to any of them except for
the one that really went overboard. Those few that I have responded to are
not around any more. <evil grin>
I don't know just what the law says about this. Normal spam I treat like
junk mail I toss it away. Those that arrive under false pretenses or are
clear scams that could hurt the less warry, I take action on.
As of now I have received two spams made to appear as email followups to my
postings in COLA. There have been some other ploys like the spam email that
begins with "This is NOT spam, this is a reply to your request for further
information". They are not directing that comment to the addresse but to
any authorities that the addresse might take the spam to for action.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:17:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >The closest that psychology has to do with rationality is that it
> >*uses* rationality as an ideal; psychology has no say in what is and
> >isn't rational. It's PHILOSOPHY that defines *ALL* of those things!
>
> Whether or not they define those terms is irrelevant to whether
> psychologists have useful things to say about them.
A perfectly valid point. And the answer to your implicit question is
'no'. PsychologY (1) does not have anything useful to say about the
interrelationships between self-interest, rationality, interest of
others, and morality. These are things that are completely within
the domain of philosophy. What psychology has a lot to say about is
how and why rationality breaks down, under what conditions morality
develops, how strong people's self-interest is, et cetera. But this
is not what I was talking about, is completely outside of the context
of the discussion (which revolved around whether these things are
mutually exclusive or not) and is *waaaaaay* outside of its scope.
(Sorry Morphis, but if you're going to take potshots in the dark,
be prepared to miss *big time*. And why didn't you think to cut
me some slack for having to deal with Perry?)
> > >Most psychologists I have met share that "delusion".
> >And *NO* philosopher I've met has thought that there is a large
> >overlap between any of these things.
>
> How many philosophers you met? How many have discussed this topic
> in your presence? What year in school are you?
If you re-read the objection Perry had to which I was responding, you
may understand exactly why I phrased myself that way. I *could* have
stated that "very few philosophers believe there is a large overlap
between self-interest, rationality and morality -- and the few that do
are morons" but I didn't because I want my argument with Perry to die.
1: I do not know what particular psychologists have done but I find
it beyond credulity that they would stray outside of their field
the way that philosophers have so expertly and repeatedly done.
Philosophers stray outside their field when other academics have
abdicated their duties (2). If psychologists talk about philosophy
at all, it can only be because of arrogance.
2: who are the experts at justice theory? It isn't political scientists,
it's philosophers. Who are the experts at cognitive science? It
isn't psychologists, it's philosophers. And *who* are the experts
at philosophy? I'll give you a hint: it *isn't* the psychologists!!
The perfect example of unmitigated arrogance is physicists trying to do
philosophy. What do those bleeding assholes know about philosophy anyways?!
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:17:24 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:27:24 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> IIRC, you can do this once you've installed IE4 (and its "shell
> >> integration") on whatever version of Windows you are running.
> >
> >So in that reguard it is nice to see that Windows is again playing
catchup
> >with Linux. Since the combination of Linux, X, fvwm, and mc has
supported
> >that feature since before IE4.
>
> ??? Windows 3.1 + the windows 3.1 file manager did the same thing. How
> is Windows "playing catchup" ? What's your point ?
> BTW, the GUI version of mc ( gmc ) wasn't usable when IE4 was released.
Windows is playing catchup with Linux by putting FTP client into the file
manager in the form of a patched Windows Explorer as of IE4 when Linux had
it well before. I am talking about mc not gmc, so the availability is a
side issue.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:40:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Assuming that you don't define being nice as being a doormat
> it most certainly can be. By being nice I have more friends,
> This improves my mental and physical health.
>
> I occasionally win arguments and frequently bring them to a
> friendly draw with exchange of information by being nice and
> not alienating my opponants.
Both of these are incredibly weak benefits when compared with
the corporate raider who gets 100 million dollars a year for
ruining thousands of people.
"It's not how long you live, it's what you do before you die."
And how much do you think a multi-millionaire can afford to do?
> People are nice back to me, providing me with information
> and help that I need.
One word: slaves. Invest in slaves and you won't need people
to be nice to you!
> >Alright, let's accept that for the moment. The only problem is that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >being miserable just because you're an asshole to people you like is
> >not rational.
>
> You expect people to be wholly rational? and I thought you were an
> anti-Libertarian...
Don't you recognize the magic words "Let us assume" in another form?
> If you are moving out of an area and come upon somebody whom you like
> and desparate for something only you can provide in time, it is in your
> monetary self-interest to gouge that person for every penny you can.
>
> That is being an asshole.
Precisely! You should now be able to guess why I don't like Libertarians
or capitalists or right-wingers in general, yes?
> If you believe in Christian morality (or any of a number of other
> moralities and ethical systems) you will be miserable if you do
> that.
Yeah, but why should that stop you? The decision to have ethics is
not rationally self-interested!
> >And of course, why don't people just stop liking the
> >people which their self-interest dictates they be assholes towards?
>
> Which self-interest?
> Long- or short-term monetary, long- or short-term emotional,
> long- or short-term physical?
Some suitable combination of the three.
> You are using the example of somebody who by definition can not
> think in a straight line to show that thinking is not a useful/valid
> tool?
I was demonstrating to Jim that he was opening a very, VERY large
can of worms and that to treat the subject with the care it deserves
will require a LOT of time and intellectual effort on his part.
But this was all obvious from context so I can only assume you
aren't paying attention.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:46:14 -0500
Steve Mentzer wrote:
> And do you think that the minimal numbers of users supporting it are going to
> continue to work for free? Someone has to pay the piper eventually.
Sounds like what they used to say about Linux.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: there are plenty of good paradigms
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:45:43 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You have to remember that programmers are *gods* with respect to
> > software, so set your ambitions and expectations accordingly.
>
> Why is godhood so much hard work?
The god gene must be next to the "shit magnet" gene.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux
Date: 18 Aug 2000 00:49:54 GMT
Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Personally the only part of office that I would ever need is MSAccess as no
: linux packages so far can open the proprietry format used by this
: application (Staroffice and others can open word,excel,powerpoint files but
: not access databases). Unfortunately I need to open access databases
: regularly at work as we use access for our software fault database (I work
: for a software company).
You'll never get at the .MDB file from outside Access except via ODBC,
but, fortunately, you can write VBA code inside Access to export your
database - including its structure, queries, etc. - into XML, SQL DDL
statements, or any other format that might be useful for
reconstructing the database in an SQL environment (in Linux or
anyplace else).
In fact, you might be able to upsize your Access tables in this
fashion to something like Postgres, link the Access tables to Postgres
via ODBC, and continue to use your app inside Access while also being
able to get at the data from anyplace else.
That's basically how I'm planning to move data out of Access and into
"real" databases even in the 'Doze world, where, unfortunately, I
still have to live during much of the work day.
Joe
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:36:00 GMT
In article <707k5.3942$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:8mq9g9
[and about 200 others] :-)
> > Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
> > and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
>
> By the way. This report by IDC claims that Linux grew
> by just over 4 million liscenses in 1999 (note, this is
> not liscenses sold) (for client
> operating systems) and 1.3 million server systems.
That's about right, if you eyeball the netcraft chart:
http://www.netcraft.com/survey/Reports/200007/graphs.html
You can see that from about November of 1998 to Novmber of 2000,
the total number of Apache sites went up about 2 million. Since
about 70% of those are Linux (about 15% are freeBSD, rest are
Sun, IBM, HP), that puts Linux at about 1.4 million servers.
Then from November 1999 to July 2000, Apache has increased by
nearly 8 million servers. Assuming about the same 70%, that would
put Linux at about 5.6 million server license shipments. Multiply
this by a replication factor of about 2.1 and you get 11.2 million
Linux server installations.
> http://www.idc.com/itforecaster/itf20000808.stm
Assuming the same ratio - roughly 4 new clients per server, that
would put put Linux at about 20 million licenced copies shipped.
(IDC measures "COE shipments"). Adding to that the replication
factor of 2.1, you get roughly 42 million users. This may be
42 million installations, with some users having multiple machines
(I run 9 machines from a single console).
After reviewing the IDC report cited above I lowered my original
90 million estimate because the subsequent year sales are showing
indication of replication of just under 3 installs per copy shipped.
My original estimate followed Bob Young's estimates of 4 installs
per copy shipped, which was reflected in subsequent year unit volumes
at the time of his report.
I'm probably being a bit conservative. The unit volumes of licenses
shipped, growth patterns within the industry as a whole (from quarterly
reports, IDC estimates, and Forrester research numbers) tend to support
a growth rate of 270% or a replication factor of 2.7 to 1. If you
used this replication factor, you would come up with roughly 54 million
Linux users - yielding a unit volume of licenses shipped for 2001 of
nearly 60 million (when this year's users will buy upgrades).
The replication factor "bottom lines" to number of users who installed
this year and needed upgrades the following year.
Since Linux can legally be copied onto multiple machines, there
would be little need to purchase more than one of any release.
Since Linux users usually settle on one distribution, there
would be little need to purchase more than one copy in the
subsequent year.
While user habits themselves are hard to estimate, the number of
shipments, for products costing a minimum of $20/copy (IDC doesn't
count "sampler packs" from Linux Mall or Cheap-Bytes), remains
relatively constant, increasing at a rate of between 240%/year and
270%/year. Since the existing base must also buy upgrades, this
means that you don't add the previous year to the current year.
> The interesting bit is that Linux
> is approaching MacOS in new liscenses.
> The bad part, is that it does not match
> up with your figures, which would
> indicate a growth rate of over 25 million liscenses a year.
I'm not reporting number of units shipped in 1999. I'm estimating
the number of installations (users) as of this month.
> In other words, your figures are off by at least 80%.
Actually, my numbers could be off by 20% either way.
Like I said before, it's like trying to count rats in the sewer.
The only safe way to attempt such a thing is to count the number
of rat droppings and estimate how many times the rat drops against
how many droppings are washed away. Good chemists could probably
give you a good estimate with a simple sample of the sewer water.
Since I have neither the resources nor the influence to go to the
home of every Linux user and ask "how many installations have you
done with your shipped license?", I have to count "droppings".
These would include Netcraft surveys (gives an overall indication of
Linux growth as a whole), stock reports of public companies, sales
of secondary products like Partition Magic, System Commander, and
Drive-Image. And sales of secondary byproducts like books on UNIX
and Linux tools, utilities, and programs. O'Reilly must be making
a fortune! Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" has grown
from a 5 page web posting to a 288 page book. They have almost 200
Linux/UNIX related titles now.
Bookstores seem to be very fond of Linux too. One medium sized store
carried over 500 Linux/UNIX titles. It was only 1994 when there were
3 books on Linux and 10 books on UNIX.
This brings to light the shift in the revenue stream as well.
In the Windows market, the OEM paid Microsoft a fee for the
software license. Software license fees were paid "up front",
and you might get service.
In the Linux/UNIX(BSD) market, a nominal charge is paid for the
License, and this frees more money for support contracts, service
level agreements, books and printed documentation, and consulting.
The IDC figures accurately reflect the fact that Linux is only
a tiny percent of the market in terms of dollars spent on license
fees. But this is by no means an indicator of the money that is/can
be spent on Linux/UNIX support and documentation.
(ala Bill Barker - the price is right)
Behind door number one; we have the shrink wrapped box containing
a CD-ROM and 40 page printed manual for $500, behind door number
two, we have 6 CD-roms (with or without shrink wrapped box), 10
incident support pack, and 5 900 page books - for $700.
Or would you like what Microsoft has behind the curtain?
(Enterprise/Data Center edition).
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Presidential Candidates?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:49:28 -0500
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Some Netcraft fun (in alphabetic order):
This is probably good as "signs of the times" for what people are
installing, but it probably means *nothing* politically.
That is to say, I suspect (hope!) the various presidential candidates have
more important issues to deal with than getting involved in the decision of
what server their Web sites will run on.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you!
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:51:43 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Due to a recent surge (ok, I got 2 projects in the last 48 hours, but
> they are huge and will keep me busy till after the new year).
Wish I had a dollar for every time you abandoned this newsgroup, Steve.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:50:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Windows 2000 appears to still have severe performance limitations,
> and reliability may actually be getting worse."
I reviewed the posting to which you were responding. This quote is
not in that posting.
To my knowledge (both research and experience), Windows 2000 is much
more reliable than NT 4.0 and is the most reliable operating system
Microsoft has produced yet.
There have been reports of people having to rebuild the entire
server more often (semiannually with NT, quarterly with Win2K),
but this may be inexperience, new Win2K procedures that NT admins
haven't mastered yet, or a remaining glitch that Microsoft could
easily fix with a service pack. I don't have enough direct
experience with Windows 2000 to assess it either way.
Put simply. Given the choice between upgrading from Windows 95
to Windows 98, Windows NT, or Windows 2000, I'd choose 2000. I'd
probably choose it over ME too. If I want a video game, I'll buy
a $200 Nintendo, not a $2000 PC.
> You sir, are either blind or a flat-out liar.
My eyes are quite good. As for making the statement you have
attributed to me. Which of us is the liar?
(I'll recheck again if you'd like?)
--
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
******************************
