Linux-Advocacy Digest #461, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 17:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: You and Microsoft... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away (Charlie Ebert)
Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Adam Warner")
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Andy Newman)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away ("Adam Warner")
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. ("Bartek Kostrzewa")
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. ("Bartek Kostrzewa")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. ("Bartek Kostrzewa")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:41:13 GMT
In article <CSf86.32$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <19L76.1172$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <uGd76.288$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >> >"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:93in2m$adklg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >The Windows setup files are all 8.3 conformant. We were talking
>about
>> >> >> using
>> >> >> >a network card, not a modem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I thought we were talking about installing from the internet so both
>> >> >> netcards and modems are relevent here.
>> >> >
>> >> >As if installing Linux via modem is feasible.
>> >>
>> >> Funny you should ask this.
>> >>
>> >> Debian will install over a modem and I just did this 2 weeks
>> >> ago. I put potato on a rural PC on a farm for a farmer.
>> >>
>> >> The Debian install dials the phone, and the download takes
>> >> over night. If the phone line disconnects it redials
>> >> and apt-get restarts where it left off.
>> >>
>> >> It's totally hands free and it doesn't miss a single bit.
>> >
>> >Right. First, remote rural areas can't get 56K, thus you were connecting
>at
>> >speeds of under 33.6, probably under 28.8. Let's just say 28.8. Since
>> >there are 10 bits in each byte over modem (8 bits, 1 start, 1 stop bit)
>> >that's 2880 bytes a second. To download 100 meg would take 9.6 hours.
>Even
>> >a basic Linux machine will be at least 300 Meg, so that's over 27 hours,
>or
>> >more than a day. Not "overnight".
>>
>> Total Bullcrap EF. They do!
>>
>> 56 K hot and read and the fiber line is just 2 miles away.
>
>Ok charlie, you've just completely shot your credibility on this story (your
>credibility is shot anyways, but on this story you're lying).
>
>56K doesn't work with fiber lines. 56K works only on copper connected
>directly to a CO because it takes advantage of the lack of analog to digital
>conversion. If you've got fiber between you and the CO, you get multiple
>A/D conversions and it totally screws your ability to get more than 33.6.
>
>> And YES overnight. Believe it bad boy.
>
>Liar.
>
Wow your desperate.
Okay, 56 K modem tied to twisted pair which leads just 2 miles to a SWB
fiber trunkhouse they put in. All of the Central States have fiber just
a couple of miles away now.
What new length will you go to to achieve WEENIEDOM this time EF?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:43:20 GMT
In article <S1o86.83$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:9fns39.13o.ln@gd2zzx...
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
>
>This is a driver issue only, not a problem with Win2k (unless you count poor
>3rd party drivers to be a problem with the OS, in which case Linux has even
>more problems there).
>
The phrase 3rd party driver and Linux aren't used together in the GPL frame.
>The other point brought up in the article about lack of certified software
>is also a red herring. Software doesn't have to be certified to run
>flawlessly. I think most companies are simply waiting for Whistler to
>certify to save money.
>
>
Hope this helps.
Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:44:58 +1200
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
---Begin Excerpt---
" We are presented with two choices at this point, we can downgrade the
operating system to Windows NT 4.0 and use the same high-end, extremely,
fast network cards or we can stay with Windows 2000 and replace the network
cards with the lower-end, but still server-class, network cards. We have
opted for the first plan as this is a configuration which we have used and
know works. At this point, we do not want to experiment with our clients
only to find out that the lower-end network cards are not sufficient to the
task.
---End Excerpt ---
Is it true that "Microsoft has not released any figures on corporation W2K
server migration figures, almost a year after its release."? I'd appreciate
links to any articles if they are available.
Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are flaky under the 2.4
Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:44:55 GMT
In article <dYn86.82$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:54:01 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:93l9sj$j98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> >> But they ALSO don't want to have to bluescreen and reboot at
>> >> unpredictable and frequent intervals;
>>
>> >That's bullshit. Most people don't have frequent bluescreens under
>> >Win9x.
>>
>> In another post you say your girlfriend's system fails once a month. I
>> count that as "frequent". My boss uses Win9x on his laptop and he was
>> just yesterday asking me if having failures once a week is normal.
>
>while "frequent" is a subjective term, I don't think a once a month failure
>is all that frequent for a consumer grade OS which is intended to be
>shutdown nightly.
>
Well if you agree that Windows should be shut down nightly then
I guess you agree that Windows has tremendous DOWNTIME and not
UPTIME.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:53:27 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>Yes, you could come up with a solution, but it would be vastly slower than X
>running natively. Thus nearly all existing apps would take a large penalty
>hit.
Since you don't know what the solutions are you cannot say it would be "vastly
slower than X running natively". The dominating factor in most X servers is
how fast they can get pixels to the screen. If the code path to the underlying
output mechanism, e.g, Quartz, is not too convoluted and avoids copies - which
Mach IPC-based things can avoid trivially, the system does it all for you using
VM tricks - and the "blocking factor" (avg. # pixels/blit) is high enough then
it's very likely you wouldn't see much of a hit at all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:48:25 GMT
In article <93t22l$gob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Absolutely,
>>>
>>> OS-X on Linux.
>>>
>>> I'll try that.
>
>> What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on Linux?
>
>OSX is *not* BSD. You are quite highly misinformed.
>
PLEASE! DO NOT DISTURB THE THINKING OF THE HIGH PRIEST OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY!
ANYTHING HE SAYS IMMEDIATELY BECOMES LAW!
LIKE THAT BULLSHIT ABOUT LINUX EATING POWERSUPPLYS.
You can do anything you want to with EF but don't hold a
BIC lit anywhere near his proclaimation hole.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:36:03 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > I'm operating under facts I heard in a debate not unlike this one several
weeks
> > back. I was under the impression (from what individuals in your situation
were
> > telling me) that Tux has a kernel component, or can operate in kernel mode.
> > It was this mode that was used in the SpecWeb results to obtain the high
numbers
> > they achieved.
> >
>
> In other words, you did no research of your own before blasting Tux. Your
> confusing Tux and khttpd makes this quite clear.
Well, people who know more about this than I, including the defenders of Linux
were agreeing that the Tux used in SpecWeb99 was running in kernel mode. This
is what spawned the debate as to whether the numbers really mean anything since
no intelligent person would run a production web site in the kernel.
Now, if you're saying they were all wrong, then that's different.
Was the Tux use in that benchmark running kernel mode or not? In the previous
debate, they said it was. If you're now saying it wasn't, then please provide
a URL. So far, no one has debated that Tux was running kernel mode.
> khttpd is a kernel mode web server.
But we're not talking about that, we're talking about Tux.
> Tux has a kernel component, but also has a user mode component. It was
> designed to be stable and secure while at the same time providing high speed.
Two
> very different animals.
I don't care, if you think it's "stable", if it runs in the kernel, then
the risk of compromise is even higher than user-mode http servers.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:52:16 GMT
In article <d4o86.84$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <MrK76.1164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch
>wrote:
>> > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
>> > > >> >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
>> > > >interchangeable.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> What about Word98?
>> > > >
>> > > >Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
>> > formats.
>> > >
>> > > Funny but just 3 days ago you said that Word 2000 and Word 98 were
>> > compatible
>> > > formats. You said there were NO incompatible Word formats in this
>series.
>> >
>> > No, I said Word 2000 and Word 97 were compatible. Wake up and pay
>> > attention.
>> >
>> > > Now this.
>> > >
>> > > Again! How much proof from the MANS OWN WORDS do we need before we
>> > > just stamp "DUMBSHIT" across his forehead and cut this man loose.
>> >
>> > You're the dumbshit that can't even keep an argument straight.
>> >
>> > > Does anybody listen to this idiot?
>> >
>> > Clearly you don't listen to anyone.
>> So everyone who jumped on the bandwagon and converted from Word97 to
>> Word98 are screwed and now have to convert to Word2000 format? How many
>> Word formats are there?
>
>What the hell are you talking about? Word 98 is the *MAC* version. Word 97
>is the PC version as is Word 2000. Nobody "jumped on the bandwagon" and
>converted to Word 98 unless they also converted to Macintosh, in which case
>they're not going to be converting back.
>
Oh well excuse me!
DECLARATION FROM THE SUPREME HIGH TECHNOLOGY PRIEST!
MAC USERS ARE DEFAULT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD
AND THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE!
AND LINUX STILL EATS POWER SUPPLIES WITH IT'S DRIVERS.
SO YOUR LUCK TO RUN WINDOWS AND THEN YOUR UNLUCKY!
<EOT>
Hope this helps.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 21:52:50 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>> >>
>> >> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>> >> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>> >> consider it?
>> >
>> >The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
>>
>> The bulk of what constitues Apple NeXTstep is already
>> running on top of X courtesy of GNU and has been for
>> awhile now.
> No, it doesn't.
What he probably meant was Afterstep and Windowmaker.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:54:04 GMT
In article <c6o86.85$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Fzn86.57932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Can't you just, for one minute, stop thinking about how the computer
>> > industry works today and think about how it worked 10-15 years ago when
>> > these formats were created? There was no interoperability then, it
>wasn't
>> > an issue. This is just the result of legacy code.
>>
>> 10-15 years ago there was already a long history of wildly different
>> CPU types with variations in word size and bit/byte ordering - and
>> unix already ran on most of them with interchangeable data files.
>> You can't pretend that the lock-in that the Microsoft file formats
>> caused was not intentional - unless you want to claim that they
>> were complete idiots, unaware of the rest of the industry or even
>> the Macintosh.
>
>Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific and perhaps even
>banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
>
>
<EF translator on>
I don't know what I'm talking about but if I pretent to come from
the mainframe arena they will leave me alone. Boy this sounds
so cool! I'll really knock em over with my intelligence with this
cute one liner! I'm so brilliant!
<EF translator off>
Bit my weenie EF.
We are tired of your loonatic loonacy moon man.
Charlie
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:55:42 GMT
In article <7Zo86.2934$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > I'm operating under facts I heard in a debate not unlike this one several
>weeks
>> > back. I was under the impression (from what individuals in your situation
>were
>> > telling me) that Tux has a kernel component, or can operate in kernel mode.
>> > It was this mode that was used in the SpecWeb results to obtain the high
>numbers
>> > they achieved.
>> >
>>
>> In other words, you did no research of your own before blasting Tux. Your
>> confusing Tux and khttpd makes this quite clear.
>
>Well, people who know more about this than I, including the defenders of Linux
>were agreeing that the Tux used in SpecWeb99 was running in kernel mode. This
>is what spawned the debate as to whether the numbers really mean anything since
>no intelligent person would run a production web site in the kernel.
>
>Now, if you're saying they were all wrong, then that's different.
>
>Was the Tux use in that benchmark running kernel mode or not? In the previous
>debate, they said it was. If you're now saying it wasn't, then please provide
>a URL. So far, no one has debated that Tux was running kernel mode.
>
>> khttpd is a kernel mode web server.
>
>But we're not talking about that, we're talking about Tux.
>
>> Tux has a kernel component, but also has a user mode component. It was
>> designed to be stable and secure while at the same time providing high speed.
>Two
>> very different animals.
>
>I don't care, if you think it's "stable", if it runs in the kernel, then
>the risk of compromise is even higher than user-mode http servers.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Chad you are in ignorant fat ass.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:58:37 +1200
Hi Roy,
Sorry for duplicating your posting Roy (but the title was cryptic).
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:03:13 +0100
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93t3ch$qh0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This sounds like complete nonsense...
>
> 1) Does Luxembourg use dollars as currency?
nope
> 2) I suppose the tax system of Luxembourg is similar to other countries.
> Explain the gain of paying more then necessary for any system.
You see, in Luxembourg, if you invest into your business, the entire cost of
this investment is taken from your "extra" tax pay at the end of the year,
so if you earn 500.000 Lux. francs per month, and you don't do any
investions, you'll probably pay some 3-4 million Francs at the end of the
year (and yes, you pay regular taxes too).
> 3) Why didnt you buy a 1 mio $ system
It wouldn't make sense, and the budget is too low, the budget allowed for
8.000$, because that was exactly the amount needed to leverage the "extra"
end of the year tax paying. Which then, with other investments done, results
in exactly 0 Francs of additional end of the year taxes.
>
>
> Bartek Kostrzewa wrote:
>
> > I'm a fellow Linux user, so this is not something against Linux, rather
> > against our tax system here in Luxembourg.
> >
> > Why does an economically nice solution like a stock-hardware, Linux
based
> > Server (in this case for Fileserver use) lose against a Win2k Server +
> > Compaq hardware?
> >
> > My friend's father has a small company, he asked me to give him a
proposal
> > for a file server (serving 8 computers with 500MB/day/PC), so I built a
> > server for 1500$ with SCSI, AMD Duron 750, 256 MB of RAM and a 100 Mbit
> > NIC, of course, I told him I'd install Linux and set up SAMBA for file
> > serving (the company is 100% M$ based). When he heard the price he said:
> > "What? That's far too cheap! I need to spend at least 7500$ on it, so I
> > can reduce my tax charges at the end of the year!" Now he bought a Win2k
> > Server based Compaq Proline server powered by an 933Mhz PIII, 256MB of
> > RDRAM and 60GB
> > RAID-10 (4 30GB 10K rpm SCSI harddrives in RAID mode, stripped and
imaged
> > together).... and that for 8 computer low-profile file-sharing.
> >
> > Even with the maximum service option possible (RedHat) the Linux-based
> > soultion wouldn't have cost enough...
> >
> > As you see, Luxembourg's taxing logic is pretty hard to understand, you
> > have to invest tons of money into your businness, so the state can't
take
> > "extra" taxes at the end of the year...
> >
> >
>
> --
> Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:06:34 +0100
[deltia]
>
> Why not just squander the extra money on frivolous hardware.
>
> You could have added a rather nice RAID array to that configuration
> to bring the price up if that was really the problem.
But what for?! They don't need that kind of machine! That's the whole point
I wanted to make, you have to buy too much, so you don't have to put so much
money into the state's pockets, and I find this tax system ridiculous, the
more money you have to invest, the less taxes you pay... rich people get
richer, and poor people have to pay (relatively) very high amounts in taxes.
>
>
> >As you see, Luxembourg's taxing logic is pretty hard to understand, you
have
> >to invest tons of money into your businness, so the state can't take
"extra"
> >taxes at the end of the year...
>
> So? Just spend it in hardware.
just like I said... what the heck for?
>
> --
>
> Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
>
> That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
> |||
> / | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 22:05:33 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93t22l$gob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Absolutely,
>> >>
>> >> OS-X on Linux.
>> >>
>> >> I'll try that.
>>
>> > What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on
> Linux?
>>
>> OSX is *not* BSD. You are quite highly misinformed.
> It's BSD based.
Loosely. WindowsME is dos based in just about the same way.
=====.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: "Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:07:30 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:SBo86.90$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3a620d03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > My friend's father has a small company, he asked me to give him a
proposal
> > for a file server (serving 8 computers with 500MB/day/PC), so I built a
> > server for 1500$ with SCSI, AMD Duron 750, 256 MB of RAM and a 100 Mbit
> NIC,
> > of course, I told him I'd install Linux and set up SAMBA for file
serving
> > (the company is 100% M$ based). When he heard the price he said: "What?
> > That's far too cheap! I need to spend at least 7500$ on it, so I can
> reduce
> > my tax charges at the end of the year!" Now he bought a Win2k Server
based
> > Compaq Proline server powered by an 933Mhz PIII, 256MB of RDRAM and 60GB
> > RAID-10 (4 30GB 10K rpm SCSI harddrives in RAID mode, stripped and
imaged
> > together).... and that for 8 computer low-profile file-sharing.
>
> This is not all that different from the US, except we have other issues as
> well. Many companies strive to have 0 profit, so they pay no (or very
> little) corporate tax, since corporate tax in most states is quite high.
On
> top of that, lots of larger companies give their departments budgets. If
> they don't spend all their budget, they reduce their budget next year,
which
> encourages departments to spend every dime they have whether they need it
or
> not.
Poor people pay taxes, rich companies do not, that's just plain sick....
don't you guys think so?
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 22:06:14 GMT
Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pip wrote:
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > Absolutely,
>>> >
>>> > OS-X on Linux.
>>> >
>>> > I'll try that.
>>>
>>> What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on Linux?
>>
>>..oh for posix compatibility... it all started so well
>>:-)
> Well the *interesting bits* of OS X (and NeXTSTEP for that matter) typically
> use the Mach primitives for IPC, threading, synchronization, etc...
> There's very little BSD/Posix/Unix in there at all and never really has
> been (other than the initial work - NeXTSTEP was started on Sun 3's
> running the BSD derived SunOS, about the time MS were doing Windows 2).
Now now, theres LOTS of POSIX in there. OSX is rightfully POSIX as well.
As it should be.
=====.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 22:06:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>>>>> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>>>>> consider it?
>>>>
>>>>The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
>>
>>> The bulk of what constitues Apple NeXTstep is already
>>> running on top of X courtesy of GNU and has been for
>>> awhile now.
>>
>>The bulk of what constituted NeXTStep was display postscript, and is not
>>running on linux at all.
> ...DPS has been running under Linux/GNU for at least 2 years.
Indeed; I was quite incorrect.
Except that its much, much better under OpenStep/OSX. :)
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:54:25 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:29:02 GMT,
> > > Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > brought forth the following words...:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Who said that? Not me.
> > > >
> > > >It's funny, you guys say, "Open source is superior"
> > > >I say, "No it's not, look at X"
> > > >You say, "Oh, so closed source is perfect, right!?"
> > > >
> > > >Um... no, I'm saying Open source isn't superior, nor perfect, nor
> > > >anything the OSS advocates claim it to be. It's no better, only
> > > >worse than closed source.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Has it been pointed out to you that it took 6 months as open source, to
> > > discover a backdoor that had existed in a previously closed source program
for
> > > years?
> >
> > No one was looking because no one needed to.
>
> How do you know?
No one has reported an exploit. If a customer had experienced a break in
due to this bug, Borland would've been sued, or would've had to issue a patch
of some kind. No security site mentions this bug. It would've been reported
by now if it had been exploited.
> > how was closed source better in this case?
> >
> > How many times had it beel exploited?
>
> That's the kicker, isn't it?
>
> Who knows how many people were using it? Who knows how many backdoors
> are in commercial software?
Who knows how many back doors are in OpenSource software. It took them
6 months just to find this one in this product. There are thousands
in Linux that they're finding all the time.
I would think that a product that was DEVELOPED under Open Source should
have most of the security related bugs flushed out during all this
extensive peer review you indoctrinate us with continuously.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
