Linux-Advocacy Digest #627, Volume #31 Sun, 21 Jan 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (mlw)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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?)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:04:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:26:12 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:14:48 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:38:55 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:25:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> >Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on
>>> >> >Sat, 20 Jan
>>> >> >>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:25:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>>> >> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> >>>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on
>>> >> >>>Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
>>> >> > [...]
>>> >> >>>>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. ;-)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Databases.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >A 'database' is not, by definition or even by convention,
>>> >> >a single file.
>>> >>
>>> >> There's that magic word: "convention".
>>> >>
>>> >> That's all that separates a table spread across 10 files
>>> >> and 5 physical disks from the video that for some
>>> >> strange reason can't be similarly divided.
>>> >
>>> >Man, you must really have you head up your ass.
>>>
>>> No, I just don't see what the big deal is.
>>>
>>> I still don't, especially after you've broken down
>>> the "process". The "need" to have a certain duration
>>> of video in a single file is entirely arbitrary.
>>
>>Man, you really are dense. I've explained the obvious 4 or
>>5 times now. When you digitize, it's easier to digitize
>>the entire clip and work with it as a whole. Breaking it
>
> Why? Do you do operations on the whole 15 minutes
> at once?
No, he doesn't. He does operations on the entire *2 hours*.
If my understanding is correct, this requires files that
are about 16 gigabytes in length -- about the size of a
medium-largish SCSI disk.
There are some issues that may exist here, mostly because I don't
know what application he's using -- or how bright it is.
But NT has been handling terabyte files for awhile now (probably
a few years, as I understand it); it would not be a problem for it.
Mind you, the seek protocol -- I've looked it up -- is a bit
brain-dead; it requires one to split up the 64-bit item into
two 32-bit pieces. Also, it's named
SetFilePointer(HANDLE hFile, LONG distance, LONG *high, DWORD method),
not lseek() or _llseek(). A bit kludgy, but it does exist in my
Borland C++ 4.51, (winbase.h) which appears to be dated April 1995;
presumably, it's been there since then -- or maybe even before then.
(It returns a DWORD, just in case anyone's curious.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random long long long long long here
EAC code #191 1d:14h:20m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:04:23 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> It's interesting that Chris "Mr Personal Attack" would say such a thing
> when posts by Penguinistas themselves (errantly) show MS in 2nd place
> to MS. Therefore the "one of the best security response time" comment
> is true by any stretch of the truth (whether it be real truth or
> Penguinista truth).
>
> Just goes to show you the blatant and unwavering hypocrasy in the
> Linux camp.
>
> A "fact" they use to prove you wrong one day is the same fact they
> refute the next.
I find it hilarious that this Myers asshole calls me "Mr. Personal
Attack", when I see people posting messages under the name
"[email protected]".
It's not an attack, it's the truth. He's the biggest idiot
in these win/lin newsgroups. He can barely spit out a coherent
sentence. Try parsing the quotes above and see what I mean.
Now back to my vow of silence re this noodle-head.
Time to read the next 50 messages.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:05:35 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:51:12 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> > Chad Myers once wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>- MS has one of the best security response time to discovered exploits.
> >> >> Even better than Red Hat in most cases. And MS even tests their patches
> >> >> and then does a full regression test each Service Pack, something
> >> >> Red Hat doesn't do.
> >>
> >> I've posted this before but I think Mr. Myers needs to see it again.
> >
> >Myers will say anything.
>
> Would that "anything" include
>
> "Linux is just such a swell operating system"
>
> or
>
> "Linux kicks Win2k's butt"
>
> or
>
> "That penguin is so cute compared to that stupid holey flag"
>
> or
>
> ... ?
>
> :-) :-)
Hey, it could happen!
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:11:57 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > It's supposed to WAIT on the fucking interrupt you god damn idiot!
> >
> > This is a general problem these days. Most software engineers just don't
> > know how the hardware works. In the old days we learnt what the hardware
> > could do because we were coding in assembler (even toggling in machine on
> > occasions:-). Now software engineers are so isolated from the hardware
> > they resort to adding delay loops in their software instead of finding out
> > how the hardware works. It is clear that Erik is of this sad generation.
> > He might know how windows works but hasn't a clue how it interacts with
> > the hardware. It appears that most Microsoft developers don't know how it
> > interacts with hardware.
>
> I know how it works, and I'm a Microsoft developer.
I suspect this is an anomaly.
>
> Ah, but then I started as a Electronics Engineer at EMI, then switched to
> software. That's one reason in my favour when I took my current job writing
> audio device drivers.
Similar to my background. I started as a tech, moved into hardware
design, then into software. I have had to actually write drivers for my
hardware design of the prototypes I built. Talk about a painful
engineering lessons. How many engineers can use a signal generator,
oscilloscope, and a kernel debugger at the same time to test a driver
and board at the same time? I suspect, perhaps, many, but not too many.
My VCR still blinks 12:00. :-(
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:09:23 GMT
I think the point of this thread was that the argument that Microsoft is
hindering Linux is a tired argument.
Which I think it is. I think there are other, better tired arguments out
there.
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94bsf1$cmc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:25:31
> > [...]
> >
> >No, it never really did have anything at all to do with quality, or even
> >'popularity'.
> >
> >>> Even when it was still just OS/2 and Win3x, Microsoft was the
> >>> owner of the definitive version of "what everyone used".
> >>
> >>They still used it because it WAS superior to do what they wanted. And
> >>that's what matters.
> >
> >No, they used it because it was superior to not using anything, and
> >those were the only two choices. That's what matters.
> >
>
> No, given the choice of paying for Win3x and then paying more to
> replace it with OS/2 or just resigning themselves to Win3x all but
> an insignificant few accepted the monopoly crapware because it was
> less expensive to capitulate.
>
> >>> Quality had nothing to do with it.
> >>
> >>It had enough quality for them.
> >
> >Is that why its become traditional to always upgrade to the newest
> >version?
> >
>
> M$ keeps the quality low enough that they can urge paying for the
> upgrade as the caller's only hope of getting their current
> irritations fixed.
>
> With the upgrade, and every service pack, come a new set of
> misbehaviors to be learned, worked around, and finally become so
> fed up with that they are willing to take another spin on the
> upgrade torture wheel rather than continue their current pain.
>
> No, M$ does not want quality anywhere near their products. The
> contrast would expose their scam for the fraud it is.
>
> >>If something had come out with better
> >>quality AND ease of use, along with documentation and support, Microsoft
> >>wouldn't exist today.
> >
>
> Because of the OEM preload contracts, which all OEMs need or they
> will go out of business, an OEM could not accept *payment* from
> the vendor of that better software to install the better software
> on any of their products.
>
> We know that because of testimony from Compaq who was offered
> money by Netscape to have them preload Netscape software and were
> looking forward to the agreement until M$ threatened to charge them
> full retail prices for all M$ software if they took Netscape up on
> the deal.
>
> Compaq knew that they could not sell any computers under that
> condition so they backed out of the agreement.
>
> Netscape was told about the threat by the negotiators as they were
> closing down the talks. Netscape went to the DOJ.
>
> Compaq refused to talk to the DOJ until M$, under threat of contempt
> citation, released them from the gag clauses of those OEM contracts.
>
> M$ admitted to making the threat but declared they never intended to
> actually carry it out.
>
> Imagine how far a mugger would get with, "It should not be armed
> robbery because the gun was not loaded."
>
> >If Microsoft didn't exist today, a lot of people would have come out
> >with better quality AND ease of use, along with documentation and
> >support. Ironically enough, we know this to be the case because
> >Microsoft has 97% of the market locked in to a Win32 OS monopoly. If
> >they were competitive, they would have competition.
> >
> For those who still think that their having no competition is
> evidence of their quality I suggest you read the thread about uptime
> and then consider that Linux would cost an OEM half of what 98
> does and deliver more than W2K sever editions do at ten times the 98
> price.
>
> >>The consumer agreed, and more games were made for Windows & DirectX
> >
> >The consumer had no choice; of course they'd want their games to be on
> >whatever OS they're using. They didn't choose it to begin with, so the
> >monopoly has no problem making sure that if consumers want Windows, they
> >have to accept DirectX. Meanwhile, Microsoft is running around like a
> >mad-man spending millions of dollars to coerce game developers into
> >supporting DirectX, so if consumers want games, they have to accept
> >DirectX, thus locking them further into having to accept Windows.
> >
> >This fucking monopoly shit is really insidious. I only wish I was half
> >as crazed as describing it makes me sound; perhaps it wouldn't scare me
> >so much, then.
> >
> The Linux tide is almost big enough to overwhelm even the monopoly
> barriers to entry.
>
> When the Appeals Court nullifies the OEM preload restrictions then
> we will start to see the boom which will come from falling prices
> and offering the consumer choices.
>
> I expect dual boot systems to wake the populace at large to the
> reality that not every computer must run Windows and then be replaced
> with Linux and FreeBSD only systems as they learn that the quality
they
> have been promised for years can actually be delivered if they avoid
> M$ software.
>
> M$ will go into a frenzy of trying to inject quality and being
> frustrated by their own people not knowing how to build anything but
> crapware.
>
> Layoffs within M$ as they get rid of the ones clinging to crapware
> production will be the first sign of true recovery of market forces.
>
> --
> "Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventually 'invent' Unix."
> - George Bonser
> "No chance. they only have a finite number of monkeys."
> - Thomas Lakofski
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:13:08 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> I've never had a problem with it. Nor have I heard of anyone having
> a problem with it except in pre SP4 days when 4+million files would
> cause it problems.
>
> I'd take this non-problem over a retarded and elementary design
> flaw that prevents ext2fs from handling larger than 2GB files.
>From http://www.mail-archive.com/digitalconcern%40egroups.com/msg00011.html
<quote>
Diskeeper can defragment directories, which provides significant
performance gain itself, however, this will not handle the internal
directory complexity. To clean that up and restore the directory to its
initial perfect state, just copy the directory (with the copy under the
same parent directory as the original, of course), giving it a new name,
then delete the original, then rename the copy to the original name. This
should be done periodically (once or twice a year?) if you frequently
create and delete files, or whenever you delete a large number of files
from a single directory. Since this changes the location of the directory
file, it's a good idea to make a list of all of the directories that you
want to clean up, and do them all at once. Then use Diskeeper to do a
boot-time consolidation afterwards. This will move the directories
together and defragment them.
</quote>
Sounds like NTFS is a real well-designed filesystem. You'd think
Microsoft would have at least programmed in a daemon... er... service
that would do this bogus directory copying for you periodically.
Like that nifty feature in Win98 that would supposedly optimize your
hard drive in the background.
Personally, I would find it easier just to slick the disk rather than
deal with this NTFS bullshit. Truthfully, I don't do any esoteric
file work that comes up against the limits of ext2, vfat, or ntfs.
I just notice that NTFS decays in performance subjectively as fast
as FAT, for example.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:01:30 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:06:21 GMT,
> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:19:54
> >GMT;
> >>
> >>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:54:25
> >>> [...]
> >>> >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.
> >>>
> >>> Lie.
> >>
> >>Not really. When the (false) news came out about Win2K having 65k
> >>bugs, Debian's bug list had somewhere in the 12-13k area. And that
> >>was just Debian alone. Yes, I know Debian != Linux, but some of those
> >>were generic Linux related.
> >
> >But you don't know which. Nor is it accurate to say they're 'finding
> >them all the time'. It didn't take them six months to find this one,
> >either; it took six months before they looked. Once they looked, they
> >found it immediately, because it is open source. Nor is the report of
> >W2K having '65,000 bugs' actually false, though it might be regarded as
> >misleading.
> >
>
> Chad is lying again, debian's bug list included bugs for all packages in the
> tree, things like apache, and emacs were included, as were gcc bugs. W2K's
> number (whatever it's real value) did not include bugs in IIS &etc.
> So to reiterate, Chad lied.
Hmm, you know, it's ironic. When the 65K number came out for Win2K,
it was a.) grossly inflated, b.) included feature requests and feature
change requests c.) included other products and projects related to Win2K.
Look, I'm not (unlike my counterparts) claiming that the Debian number
was solid, hell it could be even 6k which is a little more realistic, but
the fact still remains.
But basically, what we've learned here today, according to Jim is:
a.) It's ok to lie about Win2K and completely misrepresent facts
b.) It's not ok to take a concrete number from Debian's site and repeat
it as fact
c.) Linux has no bugs and its absurd to assert that notion.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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?)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:04:07 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:52:55 GMT
> <Hpqa6.6224$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:14:48 GMT
> >> <YPia6.2990$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:38:55 GMT, Chad Myers
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:25:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin
> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on
> >> >> >> >Sat, 20 Jan
> >> >> >> >>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:25:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin
> >> >> >> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on
> >> >> >> >>>Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
> >> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> >> >>>>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. ;-)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Databases.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A 'database' is not, by definition or even by convention,
> >> >> >> >a single file.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There's that magic word: "convention".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's all that separates a table spread across 10 files
> >> >> >> and 5 physical disks from the video that for some
> >> >> >> strange reason can't be similarly divided.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Man, you must really have you head up your ass.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I just don't see what the big deal is.
> >> >>
> >> >> I still don't, especially after you've broken down
> >> >> the "process". The "need" to have a certain duration
> >> >> of video in a single file is entirely arbitrary.
> >> >
> >> >Man, you really are dense. I've explained the obvious 4 or
> >> >5 times now. When you digitize, it's easier to digitize
> >> >the entire clip and work with it as a whole.
> >>
> >> It depends on the clip. Were I a moviemaker (I'm not), I would
> >> not want to have a single gigantic file until the very end, during
> >> final assembly; prior to that, I'd want scenes.
> >
> >Then you don't understand video processing.
>
> Well, OK, I was characterizing the wrong problem. :-)
>
> >Note: these are not
> >feature-length movies, these are video lectures. When digitizing
> >them to the computer (through firewire) stopping every 15 minutes
> >to account for Linux's poor design is not an option.
>
> Then don't use Linux. I'd say that's a no-brainer. :-)
Thank you, that's what I've been saying. =)
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:16:35 GMT
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94bvv0$cq7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Yes, well, they were naive. Truth is, it requires government action to
> >prevent monopolization. That's why they made it illegal, more than a
> >hundred years ago.
> >
> One of the reasons we have laws and governments to enforce them is
> to prevent abuse by those who will not behave decently without being
> forced.
And this is hindering Linux in what way? Microsoft doesn't OWN The PC
platform, they just run it. Linux can also run it, but people don't like
Linux as much.
Is ANYONE putting the burn on to remedy this?
> >By 2002, Linux is going to be *everywhere*.
> >
> As the lies M$ tells developers about not having any market if they
> do not write for Windows exclusively are exposed they will rush to
> establish themselves before their competition does.
DEVELOPERS who aren't smart, savvy or rich enough to do their own market
analysis deserve the market they get.
> Think of penguins on the edge of the Antarctic ice with the terror of
> sea lions in the shallow waters just off shore. Once beyond the
> shallows they can outmaneuver the salons but getting there
> requires running the gauntlet and the first few might not make it.
Really? Here's how I see it.
Penguins are standing at the edge of the Antarctic rim, staring at some kind
of golden land beyond the tundra, there is a small land bridge that can be
crossed, but powerful penguins are preaching that the world for penguins is
better in the tundra than "the golden land" could ever be. Of course this
is just an excuse, but it seems to be catchy among the penguins.
> Once the first one takes the plunge the others scramble to get out
> as quickly as possible because the last few are just as vulnerable
> as the first.
See prior paragraph.
> >Because whatever people get to replace Office, it isn't going to be
> >"taking over" desktops. You'll probably never even notice, and nobody
> >else is really going to care. This stupid misrepresentation of 'the
> >network effect' that supposedly makes me give a shit what particular
> >brand of software someone *else* is running is getting fucking tired.
> >
> That is because what most people refer to as "the network effect"
> is just the monopoly refusing to interoperate.
Really? StarOffice is 90% Microsoft Office format compatible, yet no one is
using it. Why? Well, the horrible interface, the overcomplicated
documentation and the amazing lack of performance is seems to have acquired
on all platforms.
I don't see Microsoft FORCING StarOffice a shitty product.
> Interoperation would lead to comparison and choice. M$ cannot allow
> that.
Except there is more interoperability NOW then there ever has been in
computing.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:24:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:53:46 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This comment seems to indicate that you've never even
> >seen the players you speak of - how about specifics?
>
> Xmms, with every skin I tried, is so small you can barely read the
> track numbers etc.
Try upping the brightness of your monitor, or buying one with a
dot pitch smaller than .28.
> If you double the size of it, the text looks jagged and nasty.
Then increase your monitor resolution.
> Kscd looks ok but no skins and it can't even remember it's own songs
> directory.
> Neither can xmms for that matter.
Not true at all for xmms. Are you using some ancient version?
> >I've seen winamp, and I can't say it's any improvement
> >over xmms - and that's being generous.
>
> Looks a lot better, especially when run double sized. The text does
> look jagged at that setting.
Winamp and XMMS are basically the same product. XMMS used to be called
X11Amp.
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:21:33 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Last line of the page:
> > Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
> >
> > =====
> > Use of the trademark is encouraged but abuse of it has and will be
> > prosecuted in court.
>
> Well, I'm afraid that wouldn't hold up very well, as this usage does
> make Linux a 'weak trademark', despite the fact that it is abstract (and
> only informative or descriptive for geeks by being similar to 'unix'.)
> Not that anyone could make another OS and call it Linux, but you can put
> "Linux" all over your own ads and packaging, and the ability for Linus
> to stop you from doing that is probably inversely proportional to his
> desire. IOW, he couldn't stop you, if for any reason he wanted to.
Actually, he (Linus) can. He has openly decided NOT to. He owns the
trademark, he has the RIGHT to enforce it, not the obligation to. If for
example, Microsoft made Microsoft Linux 1.0, and Linus actually gave a damn,
he could (in theory) sue Microsoft for infringing on his trademark.
Trademark law is NOT my forte. I can't even begin to theorize on the
legality of such an action.
> >>>StarOffice is a perfect example. Do you see it replacing Office? I
> >>>don't. Yet StarOffice is free and considering the expense of MS
> >>>licensing could result in quite a bit of cost savings for larger
> >>>companies, yet I don't see StarOffice taking over desktop's. Why is
> >>>that?
> >>
> >>Because whatever people get to replace Office, it isn't going to be
> >>"taking over" desktops. You'll probably never even notice, and nobody
> >>else is really going to care. This stupid misrepresentation of 'the
> >>network effect' that supposedly makes me give a shit what particular
> >>brand of software someone *else* is running is getting fucking tired.
> >>
> > That is because what most people refer to as "the network effect"
> > is just the monopoly refusing to interoperate.
> >
> > Interoperation would lead to comparison and choice. M$ cannot allow
> > that.
>
> Precisely. The ability to build and maintain an applications barrier
> never did have anything to do with 'the network effect'.
I again, don't see Microsoft sending programmers to make StarOffice a shitty
alternative to Microsoft Office. StarOffice has problems, lots of em. It
is a terrible program.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:27:51 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> Regarding hardware, NT can be a nightmare.
> 9x, up until 2K, was much better than NT in this matter (and in this matter
> alone, I might add).
> 2K is a breeze to install hardware.
When I installed it, it did not auto detect the shitty AVA-1502AE/AI
lite SCSI card that came with the Microtek scanner. I had to look up a
guess manually.
Just a contrary instance, not too important. I can't even get Linux to
detect this crappy card, so I would eventually like to get a newer setup.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
