Linux-Advocacy Digest #562, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Power of the Future! (dc)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (David M. Butler)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (John Lockwood)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (David M. Butler)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (John Lockwood)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Andrew Carpenter)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:29:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >If Microsoft is a lousy, anticompetitive company, or if Win32 doesn't
>> >> >work on other platforms -- neither one of those makes the API
>> >> >unworkable.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't describe it as unworkable; that was Simon Cooke, who was,
>> >> characteristically, building a straw man. I said it was crap.
>> >
>> >I didn't describe Win32 as uinworkable, Max. Don't ascribe quotes to me
>that
>> >I didn't make.
>>
>> Then perhaps you should be willing to do the same:
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2000 01:50:01 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy you wrote:
>>
>> >Each OS has its own paradigms in its design. Win32 is just different to
>what
>> >*you* or *they* are used to -- but rather than spend the time to get your
>> >head around it and actually try to understand *why* it was done that way,
>> >people go "Oh God! Totally unworkable API! Argh! Mummy!"
>
>Where did I ascribe that quote to you Max?
I didn't say that you ascribed it to me. I said you described Win32 as
'unworkable' in building a straw man. I'd like to say you merely 'used
the word', but the trolling started with someone using the word
'describe', and I wouldn't want to break the chain.
>Contrary to what you might think, not every post I write is about you.
Contrary to what you might think, I don't think any of your posts are
about me.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:28:55 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The thing they seem to be missing is a report of what the websites serving
> the greatest
> > > number of hits are running for server software and OS. Take a look at
> > > http://www.biznix.org/surveys/ and see that the Fortune 500 run IIS on
> Windows 2.5 times
> > > more than Apache on all other platforms combined. This is backed up by
> > > http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?ID=6150095626AM and
> > > http://www.e-gineer.com/articles/web-servers-used-at-the-top-sites.phtml.
> >
> > Unfortunately, our experience is that 3-6 times the
> > Win2K/NT hardware is required to match a Linux/Apache
> > Warp/Domino install BSD/Apache install...
> > then again, even MS knows this, so HotMail still runs
> > BSD/Apache and only the front page runs on IIS to
> > thinly veil that fact... in years not even they
> > could get it to work with 10 times the servers. Those
> > are also facts you can look up in a number of
> > magazines - and this time I wont even bother to
> > provide the links.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Do you idiots have a centralized lies and mistruths distribution
> web site?
>
> IIS has kicked Apache's but up and down in several well known
> benchmarks, especially in dynamic performance with ISAPI vs
> CGI and other APIs.
With Apache on NT... not on a Unix variant.
>
> Not to mention that you're completely, totaly, and ignorantly
> wrong on Hotmail.
>
> Hotmail runs with Win2K on the front end for presentation and
> a mixture of legacy Slowaris and Win2K on the back end serving
> up the data.
>
Hmmm... dunno... perhaps you should do a search on...
Ah... here's a place!!! www.msnbc.com ... for
info on it. It was their claim. And yeah, I did
forget to mention the Solaris part of the mix...
sorry.
Dolly
> I believe most of the actual mail handling is done with Slowaris,
> but it's being phased out. It would've been too radical a change
> all at once to rip everything out and replace it lock stock and
> barrel.
They did... the system was up and down for a
few days and it was switched back. THat's somewhere
on cnet or msnbc as well... first attempt
to switch a dismal failure with many times the
number of servers.
>
> BSD used to be on the front end, but it's performance and
> scalability reached it's limits rather rapidly. Thus Win2K was
> brought in to fill in where BSD left off.
NT has the lowest limits of any web server
I have ever seen... I find this hard to believe
that Win2K (especially after the MSNBC reports)
makes that much a difference.
>
> Soon all the bottlenecks (Slowaris) will be eliminated.
> Didn't you hear about all the custom hacks and phone calls to
> Sun that Microsoft had to made once they inherited that mess from
> the original owners? They had to completely replace the file system
> and much of the multi-processor capabilities of Slowaris because
> it just couldn't keep up. It's well documented and there were many
> fixes posted to Sun's site afterwards
>
> -Chad
Ah - they posted Hotmail server fixes to their site
for the world to see? Hmmm... that's weird. And
also hard to believe... or are you just speculating
it was there, or heard it from a third party?
Dolly
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:31:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>> >It is not the OS vendor's responsibility to make their system API's
>> >easily clonable.
>>
>> Blah blah blah.
>>
>> >In fact it has typically been seen as contrary to
>> >their interests. The various Unix vendors, for instance, have <yet> to
>> >create a common Unix standard set of system API's.
>>
>> I guess POSIX doesn't count.
>
>Well then, NT must be ok - it's POSIX compliant according to the US
>Government, the source of all goodness in the competitive arena
>according to you.
I didn't say "Anything with POSIX was OK." I said POSIX is a common
Unix standard set of system APIs. Your hopelessly inadequate and
imaginary thoughts on my feeling about government is rather laughable,
in how 'out of the blue' it is.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:34:00 -0500
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:37:12 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>dc wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
>> >TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
>> >seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
>> >gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
>> >Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
>> >sending you messages about updates you need.
>>
>> Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
>>
>
>Hmmm... how about they dont go around invading
>people's privacy to see what is and isnt
>running on their systems?
Who is "they"? If you don't want to run the update agents, don't.
Turn it off - it's not rocket science! Newbies love it, though - far
less maintenance.
If you want to disable Netbios, do it.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:42:25 GMT
"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> dc wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
> > >TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
> > >seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
> > >gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
> > >Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
> > >sending you messages about updates you need.
> >
> > Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
> >
>
> Hmmm... how about they dont go around invading
> people's privacy to see what is and isnt
> running on their systems? Even better huh?
Hey sharpie... none of that information goes OUT
on the internet. The WUC (Windows Update Checker)
goes out to see what updates are available, and
then (locally) checks the differences and lets
you know that newer updates are available.
If you consider that a privacy violation, then
why are you on the computer? Shouldn't you be in
a secluded cabin somewhere in Montana typing
a manifesto on a typewriter and sending out
conspicuous letters that tick?
> They had a court injunction against them when Win95
> was released to remove that crap.
Really? Which one was this, specifically?
> They kept the NetBIOS hole and disabled the function to later
> re-enable it in 2K. Ooops... the judge probably
> didnt specify "Windows OS's" and specified
> Win95 specifically. Irregardless, what right
> do they have to do such?
Which NetBIOS hole would this be, specifically?
(URLs please, no more idle conjecture)
> > >But that's a little off the topic... the point is, even
> > >if MS eliminated all the security holes (and ya need
> > >to plug Win2K first before any claim of IIS5 security
> > >is valid), it cant serve worth anything in comparison
> > >to Linux, OS/2, BSD or OSX for that matter.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> Ah - if ths OS isnt secure, it's ok as long as
> IIS is?
Who says the OS isn't secure. The TSEC (someone who
obviously knows more about security than you) would
disagree.
> Gee that one went out the door with
> plenty of previous IIS releases proving that
> an insecure OS made running IIS on it
> insecure.
Ah, and so Domino is perfect, right? Shall I list
all the security exploits for Domino/Notes?
> Oh - add to that, W2K was supposed
> to be secure...
It is.
> and turned out not to be.
Since when? What planet are you living on?
> Give IIS 5 some time... a few more weeks at most is
> my guess and the reports will start coming in
> of college and high school kids who have hacked
> into it.
A few more weeks? On top of the months its been
out already? How much longer should we wait?
> Happens every time they release some new "secure"
> product.
Every time?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:45:12 GMT
"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >were needed. dual processors each, 512MB RAM. Oooh the
> > > >joy of serving 100X the content to 10X the people on ONE
> > > >OS/2 box. From what I understand Linux is as proficient
> > > >or almost as proficent as Warp in that respect. And IBM's
> > > >claim is that Warp's TCP/IP stack is "the best" (not "one
> > > >of", or "almost") TCP/IP stack there is. Period. It shows.
> > > >It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
> > > >TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
> > > >seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
> > > >gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
> > > >Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
> > > >sending you messages about updates you need.
> > >
> > > Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
> >
> > Dolly is an IBMvocate, this level of thinking IS rocket
> > science to him/her.
> >
> > -Chad
>
> Ah yes... MS says they will stop doing something.
> They dont.
Cites please?
> MS lies and says they did stop. They
> didnt.
Didn't stop what?
> MS finally publicly admits they never did,
> and the answer is... "ooh, just turn it off" by which
> I presume you mean the machine - good answer for
> a server... and since if you install TCPIP and NOT
> NetBIOS, it still installs NetBIOS code that is
> hard-coded into the stack I know it's not NetBIOS
> you mean I should turn off.
It's hard-coded into the stack? What's this little
checkbox that says "Enable NetBIOS over TCP/IP"
for, then?
Dolly, please get a clue before you embarass yourself
further.
-Chad
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:47:13 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
dc wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:37:12 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >dc wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
> >> >TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
> >> >seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
> >> >gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
> >> >Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
> >> >sending you messages about updates you need.
> >>
> >> Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
> >>
> >
> >Hmmm... how about they dont go around invading
> >people's privacy to see what is and isnt
> >running on their systems?
>
> Who is "they"? If you don't want to run the update agents, don't.
> Turn it off - it's not rocket science! Newbies love it, though - far
> less maintenance.
Odd... the message came up with it off... maybe
having IE running disables that setting?
>
> If you want to disable Netbios, do it.
You cannot disable NetBIOS. If you dont install
it, a subset of it is still installed in the TCP
stack as always allowing NetBIOS port 139 usage.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:53:23 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2000 13:56:06 -0400, David M. Butler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, doesn't work with mine for some reason... it's probably actually
> >something that I'm doing wrong, but it's a minor hassle at most. I'm
> >sure 2.4 will support it just fine and dandy.
>
> Unless it's USB, that's not a reasonable assumption. If it's just
> a normal serial camera then there's nothing necessarily keeping
> it from being supporetd now. Even if it is USB, there should be
> enough backports of the USB stack such that you wouldn't need to
> run 2.4.
It's USB, and I believe the backport of USB stack does indeed work with it,
but I have a somewhat outdated kernel and haven't spent the time to
download and patch and compile, etc... I'll get to it soon... I'm fine for
now though. :)
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:47:33 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BewE5.28074$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > dc wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
> > > >TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
> > > >seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
> > > >gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
> > > >Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
> > > >sending you messages about updates you need.
> > >
> > > Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm... how about they dont go around invading
> > people's privacy to see what is and isnt
> > running on their systems? Even better huh?
>
<SNIP: Me talking about something different>
Sorry, I got mixed up and though you were talking about
the Windows Update, which has been the topic of previous
threads.
What exact privacy problems are you referring to?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:48:44 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "John Lockwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:39:29 +0200, "Fr�d�ric G. MARAND"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Can you seriously write that ?
> > >
> > >Or add something like "..part of the time" .
> > >
> > >John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:25:25 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >[...]
> > >> 1) Windows works.
> > >[...]
> > >
> >
> > Well, given that I develop on NT day in and day out, and it crashes
> > infrequently enough that I'm not annoyed by it, I'd say that "Windows
> > works" is fair. Doesn Linux work better? All by itself, yes, but not
> > when one adds XWindows.
>
> Actually I'm quite surprised when an X windows app DOESN'T CRASH! It's
> like - click the icon and pray.
> I'm about ready to create shortcuts to some "pid" files just to make it
> easier to run.
Hell, typing "startx" is usually an leap of faith...
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:50:51 GMT
"John Lockwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >DOS rarely crashed *AT THE COMMAND LINE* too. So what?
> >
>
> So what to which part? :-)
You mentioned that Linux was pretty stable as long as
you didn't enter XWindows (which is correct).
I was attempting to say "so what have you gained then?".
Linux is a really stable beefy version of DOS, essentially?
heh
Command-lines are at their most useful when they compliment
a good GUI. Maximum productivity is acheived, despite what
the Linvocates would argue to make themselves seem more
important.
If I want cmd-line that doesn't crash much, I could
use DOS too, so what have I gained besides having a little
bit better hardware support?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:02:56 -0700
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:48:44 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hell, typing "startx" is usually an leap of faith...
>
I like X Windows a LOT more now that I've learned about
Ctrl-backspace. ;-)
John
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:59:20 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >> >1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
> >> >No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
> >> >treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided
> >> >by another information content provider.
> >> >
> >> >(What part of this don't you understand? )
> >>
> >> The part where it has anything to do with what we're talking about. If
> >> you want to avoid being treated like a publisher, you have to avoid
> >> publishing. That means you are not at liberty to pick and choose who's
> >> posts appear.
> >
> >Show me a reference backing this absurd statement up!
>
> No.
Then shut up until you can provide proof.
>
> >Yes you must be right about content liability and the rest of the world
must
> >be wrong, including courts which have ruled based on the law.
>
> Not the rest of the world; just you.
>
> >Here's a case where AOL has actually paid for content (just like your
> >mythical newspaper publisher), not merely allowed it to exist on their
> >server. And have been found immune from liability.
> >http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/drudge/Default.htm
>
> I didn't say that was what made them newspaper publishers, that they
> paid for content, did I?
No, but you take a more insane stance that by exersizing their right to
delete unwanted content they are suddenly liable for ALL the content that
others post.
> As long as they only practice 'good faith' exclusion of messages, rather
> than blatant and intentional censorship.
As long as *nothing*.. If you can't bring forth a single sucessfull
censorship lawsuit or a single ordinance or law stating that the owner of a
server has no right to censor content without taking on a "publisher roll"
Especially in the face of the existing law written specifically to convey
the opposite:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as
the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information
content provider.
You arguing for the sake of argument again. Show proof or shut up.
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:11:34 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
> Can you get every application for Windows on Linux? No you can't.
>
> (This might matter to you if you were into using your computer)
(or more appropriately, this might matter to you if you want a clone of
Microsoft software, in which case, why are you using Linux?)
I use zero MS Windows apps (aside from a brief boot to copy digital camera
pics) and have done so for quite some time now. In fact, if I wasn't being
so lazy, I'd put USB support in my Linux box so I could do that without
Windows.
So, even though I am into using my computer (amazingly enough), the above
comment does, in fact, NOT matter to me. I suppose that's why you said
'might' though, eh?
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:06:25 -0700
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:50:51 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"John Lockwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >DOS rarely crashed *AT THE COMMAND LINE* too. So what?
>> >
>>
>> So what to which part? :-)
>
>You mentioned that Linux was pretty stable as long as
>you didn't enter XWindows (which is correct).
>
>I was attempting to say "so what have you gained then?".
>
Multithreading, a complete set of development tools for free, memory
beyond the first megabyte, long filenames, oustanding support for
Internet development, and, oh yes, Gnibbles. :-)
John
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:36:44 +1030
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> You mentioned that Linux was pretty stable as long as
> you didn't enter XWindows (which is correct).
>
> I was attempting to say "so what have you gained then?".
>
> Linux is a really stable beefy version of DOS, essentially?
> heh
>
> Command-lines are at their most useful when they compliment
> a good GUI. Maximum productivity is acheived, despite what
> the Linvocates would argue to make themselves seem more
> important.
>
> If I want cmd-line that doesn't crash much, I could
> use DOS too, so what have I gained besides having a little
> bit better hardware support?
Would you run a server using DOS?
Consider the range of uses Linux is good for without even having a
monitor attached, let alone running a graphical shell, it strikes me as
a pretty thin argument.
I don't see why a [ firewall | router | web server | file server |
etc... ] would be any more useful with a GUI running...
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 04:06:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rtqq8$1lap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> You're right, dresden. How could I have ever doubted you. IBM's 4096
>> >> processor mainframe solution will never be able to hold a candle to W2K
>> >> running on 32 processors.
>> >>
>> >> Yep.
>>
>> > Then why hasn't IBM entered this beast into the running and nuked
>> > all the competition?
>>
>> Because its not a "web solution", though it can be used as such.
> TPC doesn't meter "web solution"s, it meters transactions for all
> sorts of things. Namely, financial transactions, manufacturing transactions,
> just about any type of transactional processing etc. What exactly do these
> beasts do if they do not process anything? Granted some due science
> and mathematical calculations, but is that all? Why would transactional
> processing metrics not apply to them.
>> There are alot of companies which make enormous machines that are fully
>> capable of blowing everything that compaq makes completely away.
> But they haven't?
You're right chad. As right as dresden. Theres no way a 4096 processor
mainframe could ever beat a compaq machine.
No, really.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
