Linux-Advocacy Digest #635, Volume #31 Sun, 21 Jan 01 12:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("JS PL")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Server Saga (Tim)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("JS PL")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("JS PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:42:39 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:35:16
>J Sloan wrote:
[...]
>> Not to say that there is no room for improvement, but to say
>> the Linux GUI is "a mess" is just plain idiotic.
>
>But true.
You seem to have missed a somewhat un-subtle point, Pete.
>You have at least three different toolkits for widgets - now that's fair
>enough in itself, but take file open/save dialogs. Gtk and MOTIF are
>similar, KDE is similar to Windows. They work differently, enough to be
>confusing and distracting when you try to use the desktop on Linux. That's
>the "mess" I mean and the one I think Kyle is referring to.
Kind of like the file dialogs in Windows, you mean? Where MS comes out
with a new 'common dialog' with each version of Windows, and then
ignores it themselves with each version of Office?
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:47:25 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >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.
>>
>> Hmm, you know, that's interesting. Because all three of those are
>> baseless suppositions that have already been refuted here. It was MS's
>> own number, it did not include feature requests (but "real issues"), and
>> it was exclusively the OS.
>
>No, it's not. You are entirely baseless here Max.
>
>From the original article:
>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html
>
>"According to the Microsoft memo, the Windows 2000 source-code base
>contains:
>
[...]
>> No, that's what we've been trying to tell you. Its *not* OK to lie
>> about W2K and completely misrepresent facts, and we'd appreciate it if
>> you'd stop doing it.
>
>You're lying about it (as I just proved), so why the dual standard?
Your brains are leaking out, again, Erik. "According to Microsoft..."
is pretty much like saying "if you are dumb enough to believe it..."
>> >b.) It's not ok to take a concrete number from Debian's site and repeat
>> > it as fact
>>
>> Again, you seem to have inverted the message. The number on Debian's
>> site is known to include all software shipped with the distribution.
>
>And MS's bug list includes all software shipped with it as well.
Then what happened to "the Windows 2000 source-code base
contains:"?
>> >c.) Linux has no bugs and its absurd to assert that notion.
>>
>> You are batting .000 here, Chad. One baldfaced lie after another. What
>> is wrong with you?
>
>That's sarcasm. Look it up.
Perhaps the whole response was sarcasm. But I can't see you're saying
that someone else said "linux has no bugs" as any different from your
saying that someone said "its OK to lie about W2K". One might think it
was sarcasm coming from anybody else. For you, I'd call it trolling.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
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 16:33:48 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:I5xa6.1219$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >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.
> >
> > Hmm, you know, that's interesting. Because all three of those are
> > baseless suppositions that have already been refuted here. It was MS's
> > own number, it did not include feature requests (but "real issues"), and
> > it was exclusively the OS.
>
> No, it's not. You are entirely baseless here Max.
>
> From the original article:
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html
>
> "According to the Microsoft memo, the Windows 2000 source-code base
> contains:
>
> More than 21,000 "postponed" bugs, an indeterminate number of which
> Microsoft is characterizing as "real problems." Others are requests for new
> functionality, and others reflect "plain confusion as to how something is
> supposed to work." "
>
> Note the words "Others are request for new functionality" and the words
> "Others reflect "plain confusion as to how something is supposed to work""
>
> Another 27,000 were simply internal notes about making parts of the code
> better or more efficient.
>
> Stop distorting the truth. It *DID* in fact include feature requests, and
> it did include issues such as problems with existing programs. For
> instance, shortly after WIndows 2000 was released, MS released a
> "compatibility update", which addresses compatiblity issues with software.
> You know damn well that software was listed in the bug database.
It's interesting to note that Max didn't provide any facts to counter my
claim (which I made from facts which had come up in previous debates circling
this same 65k bugs claim).
Yet another factless post from T. Max Devlin. He's on a streak now. He's
taken the lead from the supreme liar MiG.
(Thank god I have them all killfiled!)
-Chad
------------------------------
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 16:34:53 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > I refuse to debate on an argument that has no merit.
>
> And "merit" means you think you can win, right?
>
> But you sure keep parroting the same claims over and over, even after we
> have refuted them repeatedly.
I refuse to debate on an argument that has no merit.
Essentially, some of the Penguinistas are starting arguments like,
"Since water isn't wet, then ..."
I refuse to participate in that. I'm sure you would as well.
If you want to argue, then let's argue on facts and merit, not
supposition.
-Chad
------------------------------
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 16:37:58 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Shall I continue?
>
> Yes, but cut to the chase and tell us how many of the Fortune 500 are also in
the
> Hot 100.
There are two different arguments.
Yes, IIS doesn't have a huge lead in the Hot 100, however, it's #2 at last
figure
(however the hot 100 changes with great frequency, it's entirely possible that
IIS has retaken the lead).
I'm talking about the Fortune 500, now, which is a different argument.
Yes, the Fortune 500 may not be the hit-leaders of the world, but they
certainly do carry a large porition of the total number of hits out there.
What's more important is that most of these guys have invested copious
amounts of cash into their web infrastructure, and it's important to
note that many (as part of the majority) have chosen IIS as their platform
to run the whole thing from. Many have also chosen iPlanet. Together,
iPlanet (aka Netscape Enterprise Server) and IIS make up the large majority
of the Fortune 500 platform. Apache barely makes a showing.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:54:10 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
[...]
>> >What am I getting myself in to?
>> >
>
>In the old days, source was basically open, and all computer users
>were at the forefront, and mastered even the most arcane tools.
>
>Then Gates proved that the monkey-mass can barely handle a mouse,
>and wants to be able to stick a disk in and push a button. Furthermore,
>he has proven that any deviation from those steps becomes
>insurmountable to the average moron.
Sorry; pre-compiled software predates Microsoft's monopoly by some good
bit of time. I never said I'm not capable of compiling, or even
intimidated by it. I simply prefer to not bother with it myself.
>Linux now comes along and proves that the monkey-mass can't
>even make the switch from one GUI to another GUI. It's like
>we can't step out of a Buick and step into a BMW.
No, no, no. No such thing has been at all hinted at except as a handy
excuse for Microsoft apologists.
>Much less download a tar file, decompress it, and type
>"./config; make; make install".
>
>Hell, most of us monkeys can't even program a VCR clock properly.
Actually, of those that can set a VCR clock (simply *calling* it
programming illustrates the issue), I would expect all can set it
properly. The truth is, most people don't need to have the VCR clock
set properly, because they can't figure out how to record a program.
Why, I don't know; my guess is that at this point, its more a stereotype
than a reality.
>So, flatfish is right. [I, a Penguinista, so state.]
Sometimes that Bozo bit is a problem for the rest of us. The last thing
we need is any encouragement for flathead/claire to keep using this
stupid 'penguinista' word that it made up.
>Now I shouldn't be so hard on the monkey-mass, especially as flatfish,
>chad, myself, T. Max, and all others in this group are part of it.
>People do learn, if they want to, or have to, or like it. The main
>question is, is Linux less expensive enough to overcome the inertia
>that Windozzzzzzzz has.
If it were inertia, the answer would be "yes", without a doubt. Since
the real issue is criminal activity, not market acceptance, (I think
there's more than enough indication of the market acceptance), its
simply the wrong question to ask. The right question is "Will the MS
split remedy the monopoly quickly enough for the 2001 Christmas Season
to begin the industry migration to Linux, and so we don't have to put up
with flathead for more than a couple more months?"
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:54:29 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:06 -0500;
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> JS PL wrote:
> >> >
> >> > That story kind of reminds me about how my mp3 player in Linux plays
> >exactly
> >> > 1 mp3 per system boot. I try to make it a good choice since I get to
> >only
> >> > play one until I reboot though.
> >>
> >> You sure fucked up your configuration then.
> >> Or you're absolutely lying. What a wienie.
> >
> >What do you want me to do, film it happening?
> >I didn't do anything to the configuration. It's the default install. It
> >plays an MP3 ONCE. Among other things. Sometimes it won't run ANY
programs.
> >Sometimes it runs some of them. It just does whatever it wants to do I
> >guess. I click an icon and say to myself " I wonder if this will run
today?"
> >Funny thing is, Windows 2000 on the exact same hardware runs perfectly
all
> >the time. Go figure...
>
> I think he did, and he figured that you were screwing something up. On
> the Linux thing, at least. As for W2K, you're just lying.
But you would have no way of knowing that I lie when I say that in approx.
11 months my Win2K OS has crashed exactly "once".
Give me a way or method to crash Win2k, I've yet to find one on my own.
You've never had any experience with Windows 2000 in your life except what
you've read.
So you just go ahead and advocate an OS you don't use while bashing an OS
you've never used and do it all using Windows98 to do the bashing.
------------------------------
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 16:41:14 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > I don't recall saying that Fortune 500 = top web site. Nor do
> > I see that anywhere in my previous post. Please show us where
> > you see this.
>
> No, you *didn't* say it. And *we* are saying that you should be looking at
the
> top sites rather than the Fortune 500.
Another argument with which I do not agree on the merits.
Looking at the Hot 100 _AND_ looking at the Fortune 500 tell different stories.
Many of the sites on the Hot 100 are start ups or purely web businesses which
don't have a high profit margin, or any at all.
Fortune 500 companies, OTOH is a different story. We've already covered the
Hot 100, now I want to talk about the Fortune 500.
The Fortune 500, who have large investments in the web, and who make great
deals of revenue from the web, have NOT chosen Apache.
Why is that?
Because the Fortune 500 sites are not interested in saving every last
penny, they're interested in providing a stable, reliable, easily
deployable and programmable (meaning dynamic content) platform.
They haven't chose Apache, meaning it doesn't provide them a significant
advantage in these areas. They didn't choose Apache because it is an
inferior product to IIS and iPlanet.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:56:31 +0000
> Linux Mandrake is a very nice package for someone who doesn't want to get
> into the bowels of UNIX style configuration... but falls apart if you want
> to do something other than install everything. I don't really see the point
> in installing a GUI on a machine that'll be used as a file server. I'd
> rather log into it remotely, rather than locally - hence the interest in
> Linux. However, Linux Mandrake made it difficult to install consistantly,
> something I'd noticed before.
>
Has it never occured to you that someone who know's exactly what they're
doing can do so much of a better job than someone who hasn't got a clue.
I had exactly the same problems as some of those you mentioned, however
after I found out how everything worked the problems were sovlvable
within
minutes.
Windows does not in any way let the end-used know what is going on, so
how can they learn how to do anything which the GUI is not specificaly
designed for. I have never used linuxconf, and have had no reason to.
Once you know your OS, you shouldn't have to rely on a GUI to do
everything
for you.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:58:47 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:24:00 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >>And EXACTLY the reason why Linux is being ignored on the desktop of
> >>home users.
> >
> >We've been over that. Your naive and ingenuous assumption is plainly
> >wrong. If this were the case, after all, Microsoft wouldn't have to
> >lose millions of dollars providing sufficient 'discounts' to ensure that
> >OEMs are still locked in to Windows.
>
> They don't have to. People use it because it works for them.
> Linux can't even be given away, and that is even more so when it is
> actually tried for the first time by a home user.
>
>
> >>For goodness sakes you guys actually like using the command line to
> >>play CD's.
> >
> >Personally, I prefer using a CD player. But a command line is a much
> >handier way of controlling a CD player, of course. Just tell the
> >computer what to do and it does it; no hunting around,
> >clicky-clicky-clicky. Yuck.
>
> You just proved my point.
> You are so out of touch with reality of the home market it is scary.
Just trying to explain it would be revolting.
"O.K. grandma, to play the cd you'll have to mount the cd drive." NO NO
STOP!! Step away from the computer granmdma!!
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 16:47:32 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> References: trimmed back.
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:00:09 GMT
> <twqa6.6281$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kevin Ford
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:58:32 +0000
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >Ayende Rahien once wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>> > 2.) We weren't distributing "consumer digital" products, we
> >> >>> > were making videos. Breaking up the already whole videos is
> >> >>> > just ANOTHER step we'd have to go through to reach the final product.
> >> >>> > All because of Linux's poor design. That's not a valid excuse
> >> >>> > when there are plenty of better choices out there.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Apart from the 18 month self destruct cycle.
> >>
> >> Probably caused by that absolutely horrid Master File Table, that
> >> never goes down in size, but always goes up, fragments like
> >> crazy, and generally is a pain in the you know very well where.
> >
> >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.
>
> It's not ext2fs's fault, actually. Turns out it's the apps' fault
> for not being written properly -- assuming that even makes sense
> (more pedantically, it's the apps' author's (authors'?) fault).
> Proper is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but, if an app
> religiously used off_t, a simple reocmpile would make it 64-bit
> compliant on modern Linux distributions [*]. I've already posted
> the options, but I'll post them again here:
<SNIP specifics on making an application work better with >2GB on
Linux>
Thank you for writing the technical aspects of how applications
work in this situation on Linux. Unfortunately, I don't think it
applies to this situation.
The video application wasn't being used on Linux. The situation
where Linux would've been used was over the network. It was
to be a network storage server for all the video editing machines.
At critical was the server OS's ability to store large files
safely and reliably, and network performance. Linux didn't excel
in either of these categories.
You may remember, months ago (6-8 IIRC), I posted this problem to
COLA (which, admittedly probably wasn't the smartest thing).
I asked how I could best configure Linux for maximum network
throughput and reliable filestorage for large files (>2GB).
I was then told by people I considered experts in Linux that
I would have problems, or it would be impossible to store
large files on a 32-bit Intel-based server. Thus ended my
consideration of Linux.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 16:48:59 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
> <Please@don't.spam>
> wrote
> on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:10:52 +0200
> <94dr4g$a08$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Just as yet another point of pedantry: the design of PostgreSQL, as
> >> I understand it, doesn't require one monster database file, but
> >> instead splits the problem up if it gets too big. However, I
> >> have not had a chance to test this -- and it's not clear it would
> >> have the performance you require anyway, since it's not going
> >> to help you in video processing; that's not its job.
> >> It fell down badly compared to my employer's Oracle database, anyway.
> >>
> >> Of course, to be fair, said Oracle database is running on a monster
> >> 30 (?) CPU SPARC machine with gigabytes of RAM and a fair number of
> >> spindles, consuming 30 megarows a day, each row containing
> >> about 100 or so bytes (and this with other processes querying
> >> it for various things, as well!). My dinky Pentium Pro 200 with
> >> a couple of 8 gigabyte SCSI drives and a PCI bus, while good
> >> for me, isn't going to come even close.
> >>
> >> But I was hoping... :-)
> >>
> >> (Also, my understanding is that this SPARC, big as it is, is tiny
> >> compared to some installations.)
> >>
> >> I'd have to rerun the benchmark, and my system's in a sorry state
> >> at the moment because of an outage related to the California power
> >> crisis, blowing away my system disk. Sigh.
> >>
> >> I'm curious as to how well a 32-node Win2k cluster could handle
> >> that load. Isn't that the market Microsoft's aiming for?
> >
> >DataCenter could do it, I guess.
> >It can scale to 32CPU & 64Gb ram.
> >With SQL 2K, I would assume this is possible, never saw such a beast, nor
> >did I hear about any benchmarks about it.
> >Most of the benchmarks are at TPC's site, but they aren't meaningful, they
> >use clusters, while your Oracle is using a single computer.
>
> I dunno...it sounds like a multiple-CPU "single computer" to me. :-)
> Is this a cluster or no? As opposed to, say, 32 computers on
> a high-bandwidth network (FDDI?)?
>
> >
> >I would also like to know how this can be done on wintel.
>
> Doesn't DataCenter run on Wintel? :-)
Yes. There are 16- and 32-way Intel boxes available from NEC, Unisys
and Compaq.
> Or is that some sort of IA-64
Yes. IA-64 will be shipped when IA-64 ships, or shortly after.
> or Alpha port?
No. You know that story =)
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 16:49:54 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:15:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Does anybody have any idea what the fuck he's trying to say?
> >
> >More importantly, does anybody care? (Other than EF or Claire?)
>
> He seems to back up his claims with facts and references and so do I,
> but you Penguinista's don't know how to read, or you selectively read.
>
> It's amazing how many times the same information has to be repeated to
> you guys before you finally understand.
Whoa... when has Max finally understood anything?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:07:46 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> Hmm, you know, that's interesting. Because all three of those are
> >> baseless suppositions that have already been refuted here. It was MS's
> >> own number, it did not include feature requests (but "real issues"),
and
> >> it was exclusively the OS.
> >
> >No, it's not. You are entirely baseless here Max.
> >
> >From the original article:
> >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html
> >
> >"According to the Microsoft memo, the Windows 2000 source-code base
> >contains:
> >
> [...]
> >> No, that's what we've been trying to tell you. Its *not* OK to lie
> >> about W2K and completely misrepresent facts, and we'd appreciate it if
> >> you'd stop doing it.
> >
> >You're lying about it (as I just proved), so why the dual standard?
>
> Your brains are leaking out, again, Erik. "According to Microsoft..."
> is pretty much like saying "if you are dumb enough to believe it..."
>
> >> >b.) It's not ok to take a concrete number from Debian's site and
repeat
> >> > it as fact
> >>
> >> Again, you seem to have inverted the message. The number on Debian's
> >> site is known to include all software shipped with the distribution.
> >
> >And MS's bug list includes all software shipped with it as well.
>
> Then what happened to "the Windows 2000 source-code base
> contains:"?
>
> >> >c.) Linux has no bugs and its absurd to assert that notion.
> >>
> >> You are batting .000 here, Chad. One baldfaced lie after another.
What
> >> is wrong with you?
> >
> >That's sarcasm. Look it up.
>
> Perhaps the whole response was sarcasm. But I can't see you're saying
> that someone else said "linux has no bugs" as any different from your
> saying that someone said "its OK to lie about W2K". One might think it
> was sarcasm coming from anybody else. For you, I'd call it trolling.
I haven't run accross ANY of the supposed 64,000 bugs in Win2k in 11 months.
Where might I find one of them to test out. I'm running Win2k pro, and have
Administrator access to Server and Advanced Server, give me a hint on
uncovering ONE of the 64,000 imaginary bugs.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
