Linux-Advocacy Digest #631, Volume #28 Fri, 25 Aug 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donavon
Pfeiffer Jr)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donavon
Pfeiffer Jr)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:18:33 GMT
On 25 Aug 2000 10:22:25 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On 5 Jun 2000 14:06:17 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>> W2K is perfectly stabile. It even bloes NT4 out of teh watter.
>
>That's funny, I have heard the exact same thing about NT4 in the
>past. (ie, "NT4 is perfectly stabile[sic], it even bloes[sic] NT35
>out of teh[sic] watter[sic].")
Reminds me of the microsoft FUDsters touting how great windows 95 was,
invading the os/2 newsgroups.
They're like a bad fuck. They don't know any better.
W2K is just catching up with 70's technology. It is nothing to be proud
of.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:19:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Truckasaurus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:59:26 GMT
<8o2rlp$2t2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <8njlh8$7mp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II) wrote:
>
>> All hardware sucks. All software sucks. Anyone who
>> states otherwise for anything has blinders on.
>
>No.
I would submit that the original comment above (with your very
concise rebuttal being a nice touch :-) ) is far too vague to
effectively answer. What does it mean that "hardware sucks"?
Some hardware is *supposed* to suck (vacuum cleaners :-) ). [*]
I'm not sure if the same can be said about software, admittedly,
though tools such as FTP suck down data from websites.
Of course, this is probably the wrong meaning of "to suck".
I for one am curious as to the relative I/O throughput
and MIPS/MFLOPS of comparatively priced Intel PC-AT+ and, say,
Sparc boxes (the throughput of a system can be increased
greatly by using high-speed SCSI as opposed to, say, a schlocky
second-hand IDE interface; some care may be needed here).
And then there are the operating systems; thankfully, we have
at least six that can run on identical hardware (NT/Win2k, Win9x/WinMe,
Linux, FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD, QNX, and Solaris x86). One could in
theory do comparative performance benchmaks on disk I/O, network traffic,
and even CPU speed -- presumably, a page fault request, even an
"inexpensive" one that merely requires a zeroed region of memory,
would have different response times, depending on OS. [@]
Graphics benchmarks are trickier, since Windows and Linux use different
graphics systems (Linux actually supports three graphics systems:
X, framebuffer [+], and vgalib -- and X is highly dependent on
how the server is written; Windows supports two (one deprecated):
Win16 and Win32).
(Beware of tricks such as installing Linux on
the higher (inners) cylinders of a drive, slowing it down.
Ideally, one would have six identical machines, six identical
drives, and two individuals, one who installs the software on
each machine, and one who plays "button, button, who's got the
button?", moving the drives around in a random order *after* install
so that the first individual conceptually won't know which machine
gets which OS after installation -- since they're identically
configured hardware wise, it shouldn't matter all that much.
It's also not clear that they should perform their benchmarks
at the same time if they're all on the same subnet.)
[.sigsnip]
[*] To be extremely pedantic about it, the hardware doesn't suck,
the surrounding air pressure blows.
[@] In the case of the SETI home client, there's an additional issue;
the Linux version doesn't update the screen periodically for
eye candy, whereas the Windows version does, presumably
slowing it down.
[+] Dunno if framebuffer is supported yet on x86/Vga hardware.
I've seen this on e.g. Amigas (linux-m68k).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random OS benchmark here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:23:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Truckasaurus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:12:43 GMT
<8o2sei$3ik$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <8mrm4f$kkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>> Impartial benchmarks seem to point to NT as far superior...
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1015266,00.html
>
>Gee, great news, dated June 25, 1999, and your posting is dated august 9
>2000 - is your brain always that fast? How about a benchmark on that?
I personally also have my doubts as to ZDNET being a totally
impartial authority.
But that's just me. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:32:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Voltage Spike
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 24 Aug 2000 18:01:32 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:02:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on
>Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:37:44 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>>
>>>> Another thing that I often wonder is why does linux (also 'Arachne' DOS
>>>> browser, apple mac and most if not all non-babybill based machines) need to
>>>> have things like the DNS settings manually entered. Perhaps the teams behind
>>>> the linux ppp code could find a way to reverse-engineer the windblows ppp
>>>> code and work out how they do this automatically (and share the info with
>>>> apple and arachne labs).
>>
>>I'm not sure how much of a problem that is. It's done exactly once.
>>(Unless the ISP likes to mutate itself every few months, mind you. :-) )
>>
>>[.sigsnip]
>>
>>--
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>
> Wow! Windows automatically detects my DNS numbers! Guess what, so
>does Linux. I have successfully used "auto-DNS" (my name) with
>'linuxconf', 'kppp', and (I think) with 'gnome-ppp'. I believe that there
>is no "reverse engineering" involved as it is an optional part of the ppp
>spec.
Actually, I'm not horribly up on all this, but I think "pump"
(the utility that talks to dhpcd -- don't ask me who named it)
can broadcast a DHCP request and receive a reply, which contains
among other things the IP address, the gateway uplink, and the DNS.
I could be wrong, but I do not recall setting up an explicit DNS
for my work Linux box...although it was awhile ago, a few months.
My guess is that's about as "automatic" as Windows is, since Windows can't
detect DNS numbers anymore than Linux can -- it has to be told
by some protocol, in this case, Microsoft's adaptation to DHCP.
I'll have to change my statement to "at most once". :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random faux pas here
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:29:50 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> [...]
> >I didn't see him asking someone to make a death threat.
>
> Oh, well, then suddenly I'm very worried. Heh.
>
> >The laws and facts are very, very simple. Even you should be able to
> >understand them.
> >
> >It's illegal to make death threats. Whether someone made a death threat
> >would presumably be decided by a jury which means (in theory) "would an
> >average person consider this to be a death threat?".
> >
> >HOWEVER, under U.S. law, if a person feels threatened, he has a legal
> >right to make a charge against the person who made the threat. He might
> >or might not be found to be guilty, but the "victim" has every legal
> >right to make a charge if he feels threatened. Of course, you'd then
> >have a legal right to claim that no one in their right mind would have
> >considered it a credible threat and his response damaged you (you'd
> >lose, btw).
> >
> >Unless you want to rewrite those laws, as well.
>
> Believe me, I would love nothing more than for JS/PL to engage in legal
> action on this issue. It would open up a nice big counter-suit that I
> have far more chance of winning than he would of convincing anyone that
> I threatened him.
>
> >> Recognizing that 'JS/PL' isn't a real person, I "spoke into the mike"
> >> for him, and am well within the bounds of reason for ridiculing his
> >> overly-dramatic concern.
> >
> >Actually, JS/PL presumably _is_ a real person. The fact that you don't
> >know his real name is completely irrelevant.
>
> Well, if I'm supposed to be making death threats, I'd say it was a
> relevant detail.
>
> [...]
> >He didn't harrass you.
>
> Your claim is meaningless.
>
> >You made a death threat. It's there for anyone to see. His forwarding
> >that [public] message to your ISP isn't harrassment by any rational
> >definition.
>
> Well, if it comes to it, we'll see if a jury or judge disagree with you.
>
> >As I said, I think they're going to just laugh because I didn't think it
> >was a very plausible threat. But what I think isn't relevant unless I'm
> >asked to sit on a jury. He felt threatened and had every right to send
> >your message to your ISP.
>
> Purposeful cluelessness is the only support you (or JS/PL) have, and
> that's pretty relevant whether you have a legal requirement to judge, or
> a Usenet desire to do so.
Your ISP seemed to have agreed with me, now didn't they. Death threats,
whether or not you actually now the persons name are highly illegal, (and
lame). Now drop it or I'll forward the second threat you posted and you'll
be searching for a new ISP by Monday.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:00:24 -0400
From: Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:55:29 -0400, Donavon Pfeiffer Jr wrote:
> >
>
> > Wrong, if you are encouraging dependency at an early age you are
> >creating an ever expanding problem.
>
> (1) I thought that teenage girls were legally dependent on their parents,
> not the state.
Oh,no not anymore. Now "It takes a friggin village". Parents have no say.
Since they have rights it has to be said by extension that they have no
responsibility as they are the two sides of the same coin.
>
> (2) Welfare reform has turned welfare into something that's not terribly
> dependable ( in particular, the point of it is to force welfare
> recipients to get off their butts and get a job ), so it doesn't do
> a terribly good job at "encouraging dependency".
Actually that is only true in states where fiscal responsibility has
gained import. While that is an ever growing number (witness the # of Republican
Governor's) it is in no way universal.
>
>
> > Of course that is OK with the powers
> >that be as it allows for the rhetoric of the poverty pimps and the
> >creation of a permanent voting block by establishing a self sustaining
> >underclass who grow up dependent on politicians to control their incomes
> >and lives.
>
> What, you think that the welfare slobs actually *vote* ??? Hahahahahaa ...
>
Actually , locally they do. The Democratic Party candidates organise
rides for them to get to the polls.
>
> > Ever notice the ratio of "I'll increase your benefits"
> >rhetoric vs. "I'll give you independence and self determination"
> >rhetoric?
>
> Yes. Recently, the emphasis has been on self-determination, when a welfare
> reform bill passed with flying colors.
Recently, and rather than ending the "I'll increase your benefits"
rhetoric, it moved it to medicare,medicade and social security.
>
>
> I don't see any talk about increasing handouts for welfare recipients.
>
Increased Medicare,universal health care "for the poor" are examples of
what? My stepdaughter has a not too small trust fund provided by Social Security.
She got it when her father OD'd. He was collecting SSI for a drug induced
"disability". It allowed him to collect other benefits such as subsidized housing
and maintain his drug habit until it killed him.
>
> --
> Donovan
Donavon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 19:15:21 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Consider
> that the data in the fields are not just encoded but also ecrypted as my
> example was offered to illustrate.
I still have cryptographie on the roadmap of my XML::Edifact module.
#------------------------------------------------------------------------------#
Alf O. Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> proposed a simple solution using
namespaces and processing instructions to the perlxml mailing list in
December 1998. The beauty of this aproach is that the secure document
is still well-formed and valid, and of the same document type. It could
even be translated back to UN/EDIFACT to obtain a message with encrypted
segments.
#------------------------------------------------------------------------------#
I think that cryptographie on document level is extremly important,
as the documents may contain confidental data.
> Did you notice the address of the URL in the DOCTYPE line?
>> : <!DOCTYPE RST "http://localhost/fubar.dtd>
what about <!DOCTYPE RST "http://www.webcam.de/fubar.dtd> this would not
only mean the same (www.webcam.de is 127.0.0.1 ;-) but offers the possibility
to change in future versions.
Bye Michael
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] UNA:+.? 'CED+2+:::Linux:1.2:13'UNZ+1'
http://www.xml-edifact.org/ CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:02:19 -0400
From: Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Mike Marion wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > > The whole nation would benefit greatly if a couple of these slimeballs
> > > wound up dead of unnatural, violent causes under mysterious
> > > circumstances.
> >
> > I'm assuming you mean someone from the IRS?
> >
> > > Those who seek to benefit of it can be be morally held responsible
> > > for partaking in the whole immoral system:
> > >
> > > Accepting pay to enforce a tax code which they KNOW is used for
> > > immoral purposes (Robbing workers to pay the irresponsible and
> > > lazy--I.e. they are accessories to felony theft, or enslavement,
> >
> > I hope you don't mean that by accepting pay for a job that you're a part of
> > the problem just because you know that your taxes are misuesed... if that is
> > what you mean, how to you suggest one get by in this country without a job and
> > pay?
>
> If every agent resigned, effective immediately for reasons of
> Unconstitutional
> Misuse of Funds,... Congress would be FORCED to cut out the
> uncsonstitutional
> spending.
>
>
> The ONLY reason it's successful is because there are enforcement
> officers
> willing to go along with the illegal spending.
>
The fact that so many citizens wouldn't recognise the Constitution if it
were staple to their forehead helps as well.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
> C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
> D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
> E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
> G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:03:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 07:13:58 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>paul snow wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> XML can be used to define a program in abstract. A single, separate
>> Software Rendering Facility can be used to take a program's abstract form in
>> XML and render it to the target computer system.
>>
>> XML can be used to capture the options required for this rendering.
>>
>> XML can be used to refer to a group of programs in abstract (XML), and their
>> options (XML), in order to define a single definition that can be expressed
>> in different ways on different computer systems to construct an operational,
>> distributed application. (Unlike today, where we have to install every web
>> server, every firewall, every Java JDK, every etc. all from scratch, with
>> one mistake preventing any of it from working!)
>>
>> This discussion about how XML might be used along with Linux to create a new
>> concept in Operating Systems is beginning. We have the technology and the
>> know how. We just have to take our computer system, set it on its side and
>> view it a bit differently. This technology is going to completely change
>> the rules of software configuration, management, and security, and you can
>> make it happen.
>
>This who XML hysteria worries me. We have people thinking that it is
>something other than a very inefficient text based file format. Example:
>
><?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
><!DOCTYPE RESULTSET SYSTEM "http://fubar.com/fubar.dtd">
><RESULTSET>
> <RESULT ID="0" >
> <MATCHES>0</MATCHES>
> <TIME>0.1605</TIME>
> <RATINGS>0</RATINGS>
> <MAXSCORE>2510</MAXSCORE>
> <SCORE>6947</SCORE>
> <SIZE>6536</SIZE>
> <LANGUAGE>_LANG1_</LANGUAGE>
> <DATE>957148708</DATE>
> <FORMAT>0</FORMAT>
> <MODDATE>0</MODDATE>
> </RESULT>
></RESULTSET>
>
>That's all that XML is, nothing more. It can not replace programs, it is
>not a new concept in operating systems.
It might replace programs (programs are interpreted data in their
own right, after all -- to the right interpreter, such as an x86
micro, a JVM, or even a BASIC environment), but it sure looks
hard to manage, although not too hard to generate.
But why can't we use a schema/data approach? Something like:
first 8 bytes - magic signature number, just because
byte - endianity
byte - user-defined version ID
2 bytes - number of fields
field descriptor byte: 0=short, 1=long, 2=float, 3=double,
4=zero-terminated string
field name: zero-terminated string
field descriptor byte:
field name:
...
(The floats would be in IEEE format, which is the one 680x0 and
80x86 micros use -- and possibly a large number of other computer
systems.)
Surely somebody out there's thought of a standard for this.
Or one can use a chunky format, something a la Amiga's IFF,
where data is in chunks, understood by each program. Chunks
could even have DTD-like structures if necessary.
But nooooooo....we get to clutter up what is essentially a
data-centric stream with a lot of framing clutter. Unless
I'm missing something in the DTD spec which allows for the
specification in binary of all of this data...?
>
>--
>http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:06:27 GMT
> I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me it
> seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
> live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could trouble
> farmers.
Inheritance taxes are a bit worse than that here.
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:07:39 GMT
> > A bait and switch. When you're talking about Social Security,
> > make sure you say so. This isn't what the average person thinks
> > of when you say "welfare".
>
> Social Security is *NOT* a retirement plan. It *IS* welfare.
I understand atll that, Aaron. But when your average person says
"welfare," that's not what they mean. Therefore, if you'd like to
communicate clearly, you'll have to change the way you word things.
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:09:39 GMT
> So just because big crimes occur, it's OK to ignore smaller ones?
You can focus on the small things, but when you do, you'll
be guilty of evading the issues on the big things.
C//
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
