Linux-Advocacy Digest #700, Volume #28 Mon, 28 Aug 00 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: news article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: news article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
Re: news article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Deadpenguin's 3 new identities
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451785 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Darren Winsper)
Re: Article: Why linux is here to stay (T. Max Devlin)
Anybody know who stocks Mandrake 7.1 in Seattle? (Robert Nicholson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:52:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Oooh, big words, but I hate to break it to
>you, but the law is the law. It takes one
>phone call to file a complaint and an
>officer must be sent to take that complaint.
What's your point?
>Once a complaint is filed, some states require
>a complaint of that nature require arrest and
>processing. Some dont.
Are you threatening me?
>And as for civil matters, well, you can sue
>anyone for anything... and for him to claim
>he felt threatened... well, I have watched
>parking accidents where people have sued
>for millions. I watched my mother get rear
>ended at a red light and get sued for being
>hit by a driver that failed to stop at the
>light that she was the 3rd car stopped at.
Its this kind of 'popular wisdom' bullshit that I'm trying to get rid
of, frankly. No, you haven't watched any parking accidents where people
have sued for millions, and your asinine hearsay traffic accident stuff
is obviously not a clear or cogent representation of the rule of law.
>That case took 2.5 years... because
>irregardless of good lawyers (un)due
>process allows for tons of time (months
>in some cases) for interludes during
>fact finding parts of proceedings. They
>enter "evidence", 6 months to file a
>counter claim, my mother's lawyers enter
>evidence, another 6 months... of course
>her side didnt take that long...but
>the other side took their time.
Yada yada yada. You seem to miss the point. I *want* whoever it is to
go to the police with whatever it is. Even though I'll never hear a
thing about it, I'll have the joy of knowing he got laughed at and sent
packing, and that will help my morale a whole bunch. And if I'm so
lucky as to actually be inconvenienced by his harassment tactics, I
might finally have a reason to get up in the morning, just to make it
clear as the police walk me away that I'm not going to stand for
'popular wisdom' bullshit, and would love nothing better than to have a
reason to find out and publicize just precisely who "JS/PL" is. You
already know who I am, so the "you might get sued" blackmail isn't going
to work; I don't care if I might get sued. Wake me up when someone has
the balls to try to sue me.
>So, lets now stop trying to act the grown up
>educated man with the big words and face
>reality. You are wrong. And a simple call
>to your local police department will
>confirm that.
That would depend on who made that call, and what the content of the
conversation was. If it was me calling 'JS/PL's local police
department, I would be right, as I'd have a claim of the sort you speak
of (I have evidence he has attempted and possibly succeeded in
determining where I live). If its 'JS/PL' making the call, he's going
to have to explain why he doesn't post with his real name, and yet is
worried I'm out to get him when I have no idea who he is.
Whoever told you I was wrong, Dolly, was mistaken. And if you worked it
out on your own, you're going to have to work a little harder next time.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: news article
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:53:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > --
>> > Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
>> > "Bill Gates is a white Persian cat and a monocle away
>> > from becoming another James Bond villain."
>> > "No Mr Bond, I expect you to upgrade." --Dennis Miller
>>
>> You are mixing your Bond villians. The white Persian cat is Blowfeld's
>> (sp?). The line "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." was Goldfinger's
>>
>> But I guess the Bill could have the personal wealth of Goldfinger and the
>> control of an organization like Spectre at the same time.
>
>You misspelled "does"
LOL
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: news article
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:57:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > The difference is, with Linux, no one is trying to hide the known
>> > > problems. Would someone please tell David about the "Windows has
>> > > <insert-huge-number-here> 'defects' story"? I can't remember the
>> > > details of it anymore.
>> >
>> > Are you referring to the 63,000 known bugs in Windows 2000 that
>Microsoft
>> > solved by reclassifing them as issues?
>>
>> Ashton-Tate used to call them "anomolies."
>
>Many think Borland went to hell after they took in Ashton-Tate.
You know what I think? Well, I'm gonna tell you...
I think Borland (what was the wunderkind's name?) was initially quite
powerful and competitive. But after the tech founders started getting
shut down by Gates, they let the business droids run the show, because
they seemed to understand what Gates was doing, and said they could do
better. Of course, if there's a company with monopoly power, I don't
suppose they can be "competed with" by trying to acquire monopoly power,
any more than they can be competed against with competitive strategies.
Borland was doomed long before they took in Ashton-Tate. Ashton-Tate,
of course, was doomed long before that, though they certainly could have
made a better showing if they'd understood *why* dBase was a killer app.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:58:21 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doesn't matter too much though, since the current story from Russia is
> that it was involved in a collision with a ship, which puts the depth at
> zero feet.
That's one of many stories they've put out. As far as I can tell nobody
knows what happened. But I read that a large explosion was reported at
the time by seismic instruments as far away as North America. Doesn't
sound like a collision to me.
> > Once the boat is flooded, it doesn't matter how long it takes to sink
> > to the bottom.
>
> But there's no guarantee the boat was completely flooded right away, and
> since they managed to shut down the reactors, it suggests that there was
> enough time to do quite a few things, like close some doors. Current
> reports suggest that the reactors were actually shut down *after* the
> sub was on the sea bed, since the cooling water intakes are on the
> bottom of the nose of the ship, and would have been clogged.
Actually, we don't know if they shut down the reactor, because the
Russians have now admitted they never had any contact with the crew. So
we don't know what the crew did or did not do.
The Russians heard noises coming from inside the sub. That is the only
"contact" that occured. They've now admitted there is no way of knowing
whether or not the noise was manmade or whether it was just stuff
bending and breaking and creaking on its own.
All we know for sure about the reactor is that they haven't detected any
radiation leaks. That doesn't mean the crew shut it down.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing
and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office. -David Broder
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 05:59:27 GMT
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> Oooh, big words, but I hate to break it to
> you, ...
I hate to break it to you, but you're not playing
by usenet posting ettiquette. To wit: your own addition
to an article should be at the end and not the beginning
of your post.
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: news article
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:05:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bobby D. Bryant in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>See http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html for the
>defacement graphs and http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ for the relevant
>market shares.
>
>Here are the numbers I get when normalizing for market share (I.e., the
>percentage of all defacements as listed by the pie charts in the first page,
>divided by the market share listed in the second = relative defacement rate
>per unit of market share. Presumably this number would remain more or less
>constant if market share changed.)
>
> Linux : 17 / 29.99 = .57
> Solaris: 10 / 16.33 = .61
> NT : 61 / 28.32 = 2.15
>
>Notice the similarity between Linux and Solaris, which use the same basic
>security model but have substantially different market shares.[...]
An illuminating analysis. Thanks a lot for taking the time.
I'd like to ask what you meant by "different market shares". I don't
know the numbers to begin with, so I don't want to sound like a troll.
But it occurred to me that they are 'different' in that they cover
different segments of the marketplace, and was wondering if that is what
you meant. (Normally, talk of 'market share' is only concerned with
rudimentary percentages.) Solaris has, I'd guess, less of a broad
market share, these days, but serves the high-end corporate world almost
exclusively, an incredibly large "market" in itself. That would make
sites running Solaris slightly more likely to be the target of
defacement, don't you think? The very small perturbation between Linux
and Solaris might well be illusory. Which only makes NT stand out, of
course, as being either full of security holes, or sorely hated in its
own right. Just who "defaces" these sites, anyway? I'd expect they'd
generally be targeting the content, but there must be at least some
likelihood that a good number are generated by technical 'hatred'.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:06:24 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> >> I don't believe you when you say that he says that, if that's what
> >> >> you're asking. Adam Smith might be thought, in some ingenuous
> >> >> theory,
> >> >> to say that anti-trust laws are not necessary. In that, alas, he
> >> >> was
> >> >> idealistic, if it is indeed the case.
> >> >
> >> >Adam Smith didn't think antitrust laws were viable because he thought
> >> >that powerful monopolist lobbyists would be able to prevent any
> >> >government from ever enacting them. Obviously he was wrong.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid you'd have to provide a quotation if you expect me to
> >> believe
> >> that, Eric.
> >
> >
> >From "Understanding the Antitrust Laws" by Jerrold Van Cise:
> >
> >=====
> >[Smith and Marx agreed] that a free competitive economy was in the
> >public interest so long as the competing sellers and buyers were
> >individual persons. . . . The error of Adam Smith and Karl Marx--in
> >rejecting the possibility that monopoly could be curbed by law--arose
> >from their common belief that the lobbies of the monopolists would block
> >the enactment of any such legislation. [In The Wealth of Nations, Smith
> >writes that] 'neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest
> >rank, nor the greatest public services, protect [the legislator] from
> >the most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor
> >sometimes from real danger arising from the insolent outrage of furious
> >and disappointed monopolists.'
> >====
>
> Thanks, Eric! I can agree entirely with your interpretation, Mr. Cise's
> understanding, and Adam Smiths putative sentiment. But I can't agree
> with its application in this discussion.
The sole point I was attempting to apply here was to demonstrate that
Adam Smith is not always right. And if we accept that point, then why
were you responding to Joe with the one-liner "Adam Smith say's [sic]
you're wrong"?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing
and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office. -David Broder
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:34:16 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What a dork...........................
Yes, Simon we know you are, but we are hoping for you recovery. Why did you
have to create a thrid indentity within less that 12-hours? in the mean
time:
You still have not posted and apology and retration of your dishonet and
malicious assult on my credibility. Until you have, your credibility is
zero.
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:23:38 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hello Steve||Simon||deadpenguin||Claire,
> >
> >You still have not posted and apology and retration of your dishonet and
> >malicious assult on my credibility. Until you have, your credibility is
> >zero.
> >
> >This your second phony identity in just one day. Who do you think you
are
> >fooling?
> >
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Use Linux?
> >>
> >> Yea sure, and I would love to drive that 1975 Chrysler you have sitting
in
> >your
> >> garage.
> >>
> >> Linux is like a visit back in time... It takes operations that are
simple
> >under
> >> Windows, and turns them into a mess of reading, programming and general
> >wasting
> >> of time.....It's all about applications and one quick look at
> >freshmeat.net
> >> shows a collection of fragmented and useless applications only a true
> >idiot
> >> could love.
> >>
> >> Try Netscape some time (Windows version will do) and see what you
> >think...Oh
> >> yea, "several" browsers are in the works for Linux...Think they will
ever
> >see
> >> the light of day?
> >>
> >> Doubtful....
> >>
> >>
> >> My advice?
> >>
> >> If you are interested, try Linux and see for yourself...
> >>
> >> http://www.cheapbytes.com
> >>
> >> You will soon become another dis-satisifed customer...
> >>
> >> Linux is even worse than a piece of shit, it is more like a septic tank
> >filled
> >> with fresh sewerage....
> >>
> >> Shit, what do you expect for $1.99?
> >>
> >> Billy
> >
>
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Deadpenguin's 3 new identities
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:42:26 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Let it be known that on this day Deadpenguin or what ever she/he/it want to
be called today has created 3 new online identities. They are
"bill.gates.loves.me", "D. Spider" and whparker.
=====
I run Linux, no bloody RedHat, Debian, Slackware, or Corel, just Linux.
My servers have been up 239 days 15 hours 27 minutes
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:02:49 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2_lq5.20248$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8o9s06$c3b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:%pTp5.18774$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Oh, so all those hours I spent installing stuff on Solaris was really
> > > Windows?
> >
> > Does Solaris use Microsoft Windows terminology that you have used in
this
> > thread? If any of us have made a error as the the platforms you are
used
> to
> > using, it is as a result of the terminology that you have selected to
use
> to
> > present your ideas.
> >
> > > The point is that we need to get over the idea that installing is part
> of
> > > the abstractions that the OS provides. That mindset prevents us from
> > > developing technologies (such as those I am describing here) that can
> > > install across platforms.
> >
> > Technologies that already exist, assuming that the latest permutation of
> > your position is what you are really proposing.
> >
> > The are many things that don't map well or at all from one OS to
another.
> > How would you handle those details?
> >
> > Consider file and directory attributes and permission settings. They
> don't
> > map from one OS to another very well. The installation process needs to
> be
> > OS specific in this and in many other areas.
>
> Yes, we have developed a number of great tools for describing in abstract
> information, and rendering specifically to different targets. TeX, SGML,
> XML, and PostScript to name a few.
>
> Assume that I (as a developer) have two OS targets.
>
> One is a Forth based OS that still uses block addresses and has no file
> system at all. (The old Forth arguements against file systems: "File
> systems are bad, cause performance problems, and real programmers don't
need
> them. Just give us the blocks off the disk when we ask for them!")
>
> The other is Linux.
>
> Can we get any more different than that? So in my application's XML, it
has
> a <Forth> section that lays out each <Block number="1075"> and its
contents,
> and continues for every block it needs. My application also has a <Linux>
> section that details the directories, files, etc. that the Linux
> implementation requires.
>
> If it is so easy to see how I can describe these two installations, why is
> it so hard to believe we can cover Linux, Windows, Solaris, etc.?
>
> This thread isn't about auto-magically constructing valid represenations
of
> applications for any OS. This is about being able to describe a valid
> representation on any OS.
>
> Given a technology like XML that can be used to describe structured data
> (and variations of that structured data), use that to describe the set of
> software components for a computer system. Then render those components
as
> described, by managing in context their needs as defined as how they
should
> be expressed in storage.
>
>
What I see is that you fail to answer questions and keep changing your focus
when you stated goals are shown to be flawed. You have made many claims of
what should be but you have been more mercurious than hermes. You have used
empty phrases and invalid terminology to describe your goals, what ever they
are.
How about providing us with a concrete example of what you are proposing?
It does not have to be something big, just something simple like the "touch"
or the "yes" programs. Show how you would encode it to "render" the program
and install it on Linux (all platforms supported by Linux), BSD (pick you
favorite BSD), Solaris, MS-Dos, Windows NT, Windows 95, Forth, and to make
things interesting PET, CBM, TRS-80, Apple ][, Apple ][+, Series 1,
System 34, System 36, and an DOS/VS on an IBM 360 and OS on a IBM 370.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451785
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 06:11:14 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence
for the fact that he likes to "hear" himself, and keeps talking about
how I've allegedly ignored his evidence, yet he hasn't presented any
(indeed, he's so intent on using "parrot" mode that he's made several
ridiculous claims). He's also ignored the evidence for his reading
comprehension problem (and uses "parrot" mode to talk about some
nonexistent evidence for my alleged reading comprehension problem).
Nor did he explain why he's ignored Slava's question; indeed, he
continues to feign ignorance about Slava. Lastly, he clearly doesn't
understand the concept of a digest, given that he keeps posting a
so-called "Tholen digest", yet still responds one article at a time.
Here are two more such examples:
186> Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for
186> the fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the evidence for his
186> reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain why he's so stuck on
186> "Slava's" question; indeed, he continues to assume that everybody knows
186> who "Slava" is. And he's still plagued with "parrot" syndrome, claiming
186> that I have made remarks about his responding one article at a time in the
186> process (as his multiplicitous responses attest). Lastly, he clearly
186> doesn't understand the concept of a digest, given that he keeps
186> complaining about my posting a "Tholen digest". So sad, so Tholen.
186>
186> To the digest improper:
186>
186> [Yep, since 1992 nothing worth repeating!]
186>
186> Bye!
187> Tholen tholes:
187>
187> Not very. But wait, it's just more of your pontification...
==========
Malloy likes to hear himself. The evidence:
"I take it Tholen has attempted to digest me, but since no message
to that effect appears on my newserver today, I present an oldie:"
--Joe Malloy
Maybe it's because he has trouble seeing. The evidence:
"Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?"
--Joe Malloy
"It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
of the clergy..."
--Eric Bennett
And the question of Slava's that he continues to ignore:
Message-ID: <N8On5.61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:11:34 +1000
"Why do you post exactly the same thing in each one of your
'digests', and then hypocritically accuse Tholen of not saying
'anything of value'?"
--Slava Pestov
"[who is this "Slava," Tholen, one of your sock puppets?]"
--Joe Malloy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: 28 Aug 2000 06:14:04 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:58:55 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And they need to operate in an environment outside the execution
> > environment of the supported computer systems. They need to be able to
> > manage cross platform, distributed applications.
> Just what do you mean by that? It sound like a lot of empty talk devoid of
> real meaning.
I wonder if he realises you can practically do that with Mozilla now.
Take Chatzilla for example; you click on the "install Chatzilla"
button and Mozilla takes the .xpi file and installs it. It's platform
independant and easy. If Mozilla were to grow into a desktop shell,
then this ideal could be at least partially realised.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: Why linux is here to stay
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:20:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said by in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Hmm, I don't quite agree with all 5 points.
>
>1> Vendor rivalry.
>
>OK, I'll buy this. It makes sense that "it is in the strategic interest
>of Oracle, IBM, and even SAP to push to open free platform alternatives
>that could ultimately cripple Microsoft's economic engine."
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/is/mp/linux/audio/ibm_linux-02.avi
>2> * Component chaos... Once you establish this model, Windows itself
>becomes little more than a base platform for hosting component software.
>The funny thing is that this is how many people already view Linux. So
>as Microsoft moves in this direction, they continue to validate the
>Linux development model.
>
>Everything sounds OK until the last 3 sentences. Why is this "component
>chaos" better for Linux than Windows ? Or why does it inherently favor
>any traditional OS ?
Its the same 'componentization' myth that's been circulating since the
advent of the PC application package. It might even eventually be
feasible, given an open OS and some innovative middleware. It
inherently *disfavors* any traditional OS, which is why Linux has the
advantage.
>3> * Appliance computing.
>OK, this I agree with.
It was certainly the most cogent reference to "appliance computing" I've
ever seen, and incredibly compelling when it comes to Linux providing a
utopian bridge between special purpose and general purpose computer
systems.
>4> * International appeal.
>I don't know enough about this to have an opinion.
I don't know much, but I know its a lot.
>5> * Collegiate computing. If you want to know what will be mainstream
>in corporate computing in five years, just visit your local college
>campus. Most of the people majoring in technology these days are very
>familiar with Linux...
>
>This is totally wrong. When I was in university most
>engineering/computer science students were familiar with DOS and Unix.
What university, and when was it? I've visited a number of colleges in
the last few years, and have young enough friends and co-workers to have
an idea of the current trends. I can't see how anyone wouldn't know how
Linux is sweeping the academic computer environment. EVERYONE who has a
clue and are majoring in technology these days are familiar with Linux,
and know people who run it.
>Collegiate computing is always different than, well, non-collegiate
>computing. I don't think it's a good predictor of future computing.
Its practically the definition of future computing. But I guess you'd
have had to watch Unix take over the minicomputer world simply because
all the college grads already knew it to appreciate the fact that just
about everyone will be running Linux in five or ten years, at most.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Subject: Anybody know who stocks Mandrake 7.1 in Seattle?
From: Robert Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 06:19:17 GMT
Preferably on the east side ... anybody know where I can pick up 7.1?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
