Linux-Advocacy Digest #599, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 01:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:51:15 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:20:49
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Decides what is popular, acceptable, "defacto", "norm". Come on, is it
>> >really THIS hard to comprehend?
>>
>> Boy, did you step in it there, Kyle. How can the consumer determine
>> "the norm". The only thing they can do is determine their choice. You
>> need to take the result of many different consumers, a "market", in
>> fact, in order to determine what is 'popular', or 'de facto', or 'the
>> norm'. A free market.
>
>Microsoft's software is at every computer store in America, Software for
>Microsoft's software is at every computer store in America.
That's because they're a monopoly, Kyle. It has nothing to do with
their popularity or their value.
>Apple software
>is at specialty computer stores in America, software for Apple's software
>for Apple's hardware is at specialty stores in America...
So?
>The consumer has always had a choice, and has always known it.
A choice of what? Microsoft software or Apples software is not a
choice. A PC with Microsoft software or a PC with someone else's
software; that would be a choice. An Apple is not a PC. Why can't you
seem to understand that?
>The consumer
>has decided on the IBM/PC platform, and therefor has gone with Microsoft
>Windows as their OS.
MICROSOFT DOES NOT OWN THE PC PLATFORM!!!
>The consumer has known about Apple Computer, their
>products, and has reduced the company to number two on the desktop market.
Number two behind whom: Dell, or Compaq?
>The consumer seems to have decided, the consumer may not be happy, and the
>consumer is willing to undertake an alternative OS. Show the consumer
>something that can hold a candle to Microsoft's Windows, and they will
>abandon their previous choice.
If they'd ever made any choices, your thinking would certainly make
sense. By nobody chose Windows; they had it forced on them. There's a
rather obvious and well documented paper trail.
>The consumer will not be willing to wait much longer. Linux has the
>spotlight NOW, it won't two years from now if something spectacular in the
>Linux desktop field happens. [...]
More importantly, the Appellate Court has the spotlight IN FEBRUARY, and
a legal remedy may not appear until fall. There's no chance, of course,
that Linux can't hold out that long, but I'm losing my patience. So
Linux takes over the desktop field, officially, with something quite
spectacular, next week. My new PC.
>> Apple makes computers. Microsoft doesn't. Obviously, they serve
>> different markets.
>
>Apple makes computers, AND software for those computers.
You don't seem to understand. Unless its someone else's software, its
just a computer. Apple doesn't sell software, they sell computers.
Their software is a part of their computer, not a separate product, as
it is in the PC world. Dell, or Compaq, or even IBM, for instance,
could come up with their own OS, for just their PCs. Nobody would buy
it, of course, but that's because they'd have no reason not to have that
OS work on Gateway or VALinux's computers.
>Apple is also
>number two on the platform scale. So, again, clearly the consumer had a
>choice...
Well, see, if you want to talk about 'platforms' being different from
OSes, you have to understand the illegal prevention of middleware using
Win32 by the Microsoft monopoly.
[...]
>> Yea; its called a per-processor licensing agreement. It illegally locks
>> OEMs into providing the perpetrator with monopoly power, as long as they
>> start with market power. Where they got the market power is beside the
>> point, but it mostly has to do with overselling shoddy goods.
>
>Those shoddy goods made it into someones home, because they are still on
>top, which is sort of the point, Microsoft is STILL number one.
Indeed; the monopolization, even the pre-load lock-in, is still in
place, and the application barrier is an extremely effective economic
burden to surmount. So high, in fact, that it is effectively impossible
for the market forces that you erroneously believe caused the monopoly
in the first place to overcome it, thus necessitating legal remedies for
the lawbreaking which indeed did institute, maintain, perpetuate, and
extend the monopoly.
>> >More popular than IBM DOS was, and Windows 95 was WAY more
>> >popular than OS/2 Warp was, despite the dual marketing blitz.
>>
>> IBM DOS, which was PC-DOS, BTW, was just a relabeled MS-DOS, with some
>> of the executables replaced. And Windows 95 was a monopoly, so despite
>> any "market blitz", Microsoft prevented OS/2 Warp from competing on
>> merits.
>
>How was Windows 95 a monopoly?
Hell, how was it not? (In fact, it was simply the conversion of the DOS
monopoly, the PC OS monopoly, to a new 'version'.)
>Microsoft made a decision to offer a product
>which most people concidered superior. Even though it was a structural
>nightmare (and the usage data was just not present to prove it) OS/2 Warp
>WAS available. Initaly, Windows 95's biggest sales came from people buying
>the "upgrades". Followed by OEM's and their OSR revisions (something
>Microsoft doesn't like to talk about, and we all know why...)
You are either very naive concerning these market developments, or you
are very... naive. Having waited years, while the rest of the industry
produced a huge array of new developments, the market *ravenously*
bought Win95, to replace the very pathetic Win3.1. And the popularity
of this product seems much more, then, to be based on how crappy Win3.1
was (but note the entire market used it very uniformly; known as a
monopoly). It got this way because Microsoft force-bundled Win3.1,
telling OEMs that they either had to sell ALL their PCs with DOS AND
Windows, or they would have to pay back-breaking predatory prices for
what had already become protected by an installed base providing an
application barrier.
Followed by upgrade and upgrade after upgrade. Its gotten to the point
now, of course, where the market, at least, is no longer as naive as you
are, and is resisting the newest versions of just about everything
Microsoft is forcing on them. Not always successfully, of course, at
all, because the application barrier can only get higher (when MS
continues to act anti-competitively, which they always do). But
alternatives are still locked out, and so MS is slowing down on
technical development, and focusing on ways to extort more, especially
from large customers (I count four times they've restructured prices to
increase prices while pretending not to be doing so, with the hikes
ranging from 20% to 100%, or even more.)
>OS/2 was available. It wasn't selling. The consumer decided again which
>they prefered. IBM even bundeled Windows 95 with their Aptiva systems WITH
>OS/2 Warp at the convienence of a "dual-boot". Guess which one got more
>attention by the user...?
You forget; consumers don't freely choose which OS they want; there is a
requirement that it run applications they want, as well, and this is a
"catch 22" known as the application barrier. That OS/2 couldn't
surmount it is entirely and apparently due directly to Microsoft's
anti-competitive activities intended to do that, precisely. There were
licensing tricks, development deals, leverage and partnerships, millions
of dollars Microsoft spent in order to ensure that OS/2 never found a
market. So guess which one we're still stuck with, and its only gotten
worse since then?
[...]
>> No, the typical person new way more, because they were more likely to
>> have a good deal of expertise, since there were fewer users. The
>> average PC user was probably about the same. Which just goes to show
>> how disfunctional the market has been.
>
>It shows that "back then" the more savvy user landed on Microsoft products.
I was a savvy user back then, too. No, we pretty much just got stuck
with it, and ended up with it.
>Even when they knew that other products existed, they made a choice based on
>superiority and price, not popularity.
And even when we tried alternatives, and found them superior products at
lower prices, they still mysteriously disappeared, eventually, having
never found 'wide support' despite the number of people who also miss
them.
>Now, we have people who just buy along the "upgrade trend", but the people
>would be willing to change, if they thought they had a REAL alternative.
Indeed, you're right in that. You're just hopelessly wrong in your
presumption of why they don't have a real alternative.
>> >Windows has made this possible.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>The average computer user knows NOTHING about the innards of their PC. They
>don't feel they have too. Windows has now made using a PC the level of easy
>we never thought possible during the MSDOS days.
Well, that happened for a lot of people with Mac, before it happened
with Windows. You might have been more naive in your MSDOS days, but
most of us already knew that software would improve in many ways,
including 'ease of use'. What does this have to do with Windows, again?
Other than the fact that they monopolized the PC OS market the whole
time it was happening?
>Which is why Linux zealots feel obligated to call Windows users dumb.
I think, perhaps, you simply assume (need I even point out that its a
false assumption?) that you feel obligated to consider everything useful
about a PC to be a benefit of Windows alone. I suspect, as well, that
you may presume that anything not useful about Windows or the PC is the
fault of something other than Windows. That is dumb, yes.
>> >MS-DOS & Windows 1, & 2still did not. Windows 3 didn't either, but 3.1
>> >began to make headway. Some might argue this is because more people were
>> >interested in PC's, and the idea that it's not as diffucult as "C:\>"
>> >anymore.
>>
>> Some might argue that DOS, and pre-3.1 Windows, simply sucked much worse
>> than Windows 3.1, which still sucked, but not so much Microsoft couldn't
>> use their monopoly power to force the public to accept it.
>
>Microsoft didn' thave "monopoly power" in 1993
Sure they did. Hell, they were already under investigation by the FTC
in the late 80s. They've been monopolizing, which is to say acting
anti-competitively, since day one; they had market power handed to them
by IBM. They never once used it to compete; they're strictly illegal
monopolists.
>They had a popular product
>(which wasn't really that popular, because NOTHING good was for Windows back
>then). Microsoft's major power came from the huge takeoff of Windows 95,
>and the massive news that "computing is easier" which invited regular
>consumers to actually use computers
I'm getting the feeling you saw most of this from a rather distant
perspective, Kyle.
>> >> >> >Linux has no quality software.
>> >
>> >> >> You have yet to demonstrate that in even the vaguest manner.
>> >
>> >> >Haven't I? Aside from you people in COLA, who the hell is running
>Linux
>> >on
>> >>
>> >> Not in the slightest.
>> >
>> >Ok, fine. Never mind then.
>>
>> So you'll stop claiming Linux has no quality software?
>
>No, I'm just tired of hearing that StarOffice, AbiWord and Netscape and The
>GIMP are the top crop of modern software. They are awful, and can't clearly
>can't compete with their Windows product counterparts (Microsoft Office,
>Internet Explorer, and Photoshop).
Well, I think Office, Explorer, and Photoshop are crap. Hell just about
all software is crap; as long as there's enough of it, so you can find
something that works for you, you don't have to write your own, and
that's the most that can be said for most of it.
>If they could, companies would begin to openly migrate their workstation
>platforms to Linux.
>
>I don't see this happening.
And yet you don't seem to be able to piece together why.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:52:33 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:15:21
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> No, you didn't. We've played this game before, Gary, about your
>> reticence. You pointed it out, just like you did in the post I
>> responded to, but you didn't explain anything any more. And even if you
>> did, why did you bother to play sniper games by correcting the same
>> point twice, when you knew the author couldn't have read your response?
>>
>> I can understand that sort of thing in one of those long involved
>> troll-fests; I do it often myself. But merely because each restatement
>> of the fallacy by a troll is yet another opportunity for still a
>> different perspective, a bit more information to try to make the point.
>>
>> You, on the other hand, just leap out and contradict and whenever its
>> brought up you insist that you explained yourself somewhere else. That's
>> not posting; that's trolling.
>>
>
>Think what you want. The posts I responded to were totally false with
>respect to open source. I grow tired of people making claims without
>checking some basic facts. In this case, I suspect the author of the
>posts knew that what he said was a lie.
I agree both with your statement and with your sentiment. Yet I can't
help noticing it revealed no recognition of the points I addressed at
all.
But thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:59:22 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:27:58
GMT;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 19 Jan 2001 18:27:25 GMT;
>> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >: - Import the video from firewire (usually 3:1 or 5:1 with good capture
>> >: cards)
>> >: - Load the video into Premiere or whatever app they're using for editing
>> >: - Save raw video file for posterity.
>> >: - Perform edits, insert audio, stills, etc
>> >: - Save edits to video file
>> >: - Resize video to internet video size (192x144)
>> >
>> >Alarm bells went off when I read this. How long is this video that
>> >it takes 2 GB at 192x144 size?? Does the video last all day?
>>
>> Its most probably like this:
>>
>> The production company gets a post-production video tape. Their task is
>> to produce a number of short, small 'clips' that will be presented as
>> 'web video' on some web site. (Probably ASF format. Guffaw.) Reduced
>> size and resolution, etc, would result, but the input data is still in a
>> >2Gig file.
>>
>
>That's wrong.
>
>We shot the videos ourselves. Hours and hours of video. They broke the
>videos into shorter segments (they were college educational lectures)
>which were typically 15minutes to 60 minutes in length depending on
>the subject matter. We had to digitize the videos to the computer
>and archive the raw video for prosterity in case we had to re-edit
>the video due to errors or style change.
>
>At the end, we compressed them in all the major formats (Quicktime -sucked,
>RealVideo -really sucked, and Windows Media ASF/MPEG3 which was by far
>the best quality and the smallest in size, ironically).
>
>Your "ASF format Guffaw" only further demonstrates your ignorance.
>
>-Chad
>
>(Note: that was yet ANOTHER factless post from Max)
Actually, it sounds like I nailed it. The only 'reason' you needed a 2G
file was because you didn't want to have a single video in two files; it
was beyond your capabilities. Your cheer fullness at the lock-in
prospects of monopoly crapware aside, there is nothing but "Guffaw" when
it comes to ASF format. Your confusion of that with MPEG simply
re-enforces that. What a sock-puppet.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:59:44 -0500
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> or is it because no matter how much he plays with his dick, it is still
> small and flat.
>
I thought it was because every time it posts it's crap, it gets steam-rollered.
> kiwiunixman
>
> "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94abvg$cus8k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > kiwiunixman wrote in message <3a67be20$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >why do they call you flatfish?
> >
> >
> > Because he's smelly, oily and his arguments fall flat
> >
> >
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:01:04 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
22:27:51 -0600;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> Actually, and not surprisingly, you're mistaken, Erik. Although your
>> >> confusion is understandable, a "mean time to failure" metric is not a
>> >> simple "average" of times systems were up. It is the projected average
>> >> time before *any* system, statistically, *will* fail. It is *possible*
>> >> a system can be up longer. It is *probable* it will fail earlier,
>given
>> >> anything but idealistic circumstances.
>> >
>> >In a true MTBF statistic, yes. That's not how the study worked though.
>It
>> >simply took the number of hours monitored and divided by the number of
>> >failures.
>>
>> I don't know where you got that idea.
>
>From the study, which states specifically how they calculated MTTF.
>
>> That's not what a 'mean time to failure' is.
>
>That's how they calculated it.
>
>> And it is indeed MTTF that they "computed".
>
>No, it's not.
>
>> I was
>> questioning myself the validity of the metric for software, but that
>> doesn't mean it isn't actually MTTF. You don't think they actually had
>> W2K systems up for longer than 72 forty hour weeks without a crash, did
>> you? Again, you illustrate your lack of awareness of how such
>> statistics work. No, this wasn't an average; you just imagined that.
>
>From the report at:
>
>http://www.nstl.com/downloads/Win2000Reliability.pdf
>
>"MTTF is calculated as the average of session times between unplanned
>reboots. In other words, the mean time to failure Tf is given by (graphic
>depicting Tf = T over f) where T is the duration that the operating system
>was running and f is the number of failures or unplanned reboots "
Ah, well, so indeed it is not a MTTF. Their mistake.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:02:29 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:19:31
GMT;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
>> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > Linux is not at all at fault in this scenario. You have issues with
>the
>> >> > > limitations of one filesystem. Exactly like the limitations of FAT or
>> >> > > NTFS (I know NTFS can handle larger files than ext2, but that doesn't
>> >> > > mean it doesn't have its limits).
>> >> >
>> >> > The only real limitation of NTFS I'm aware of is slow new-file creation
>when
>> >> > dealing with orders of tens of millions of files.
>> >>
>> >> There are limitations on file sizes and numbers, as there must be...
>> >> luckily, the max filesize with NTFS is huge, but it wont be long before
>> >> people are hitting that limit too (if they haven't already).
>> >
>> >16 Exabytes ???
>> >16 billion Giga byte.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that size.
>>
>> Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
>>
>> And they were really sure *they* were right, too. ;-)
>
>It's even more embarassing when Linux STILL doesn't have a fully released
>and tested FS that supports > 2GB files. Only a measly 2GB. NTFS has supported
>multiple-exabyte files on 32-bit for nearly 5-6 years now.
>
>-Chad
>
Guffaw
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
