Linux-Advocacy Digest #261, Volume #32 Sat, 17 Feb 01 05:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:42 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 16 Feb
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
[...]
>>SSH isn't a real improvement, it's just making the original crap
>>more resilient.
>
>Try to sniff a password with "crappy old telnet". It's almost trivial;
>the main problem is reassembling the packets.
>
>Now try to sniff a password with "ssh". (No fair enabling a test mode
>such as "no encryption". :-) )
>
>But you're right; the ideal system would have remote *graphical* login.
>(X does do this, with a little work with xdm; however, I don't know how
>secure it is at this time. Windows security is built-into such
>tools as pcAnywhere, a third-party offering; Windows clearly wins here
>(ssh is also third-party).)
That's not really very accurate, to say ssh is 'third party', as if to
say it is similar in that regard to pcAnywhere (or any of the other such
mechanisms, including Microsoft's own purchased code.) In truth, ssh is
telnet with encrypted passwords. It is more of a jest to respond to
Chad's trolling with it than to deny that much of the computing world
still runs, suprise suprise, on telnet; bog-standard remote terminal
emulation. If it aint' broke, and so forth.
Which might, possibly, lead away from the subject of Chad's incessant
trolling to some other subject. For example, it is my belief that the
World Wide Web itself should be bifurcated, to correct an historical
accident (which may have been indirectly caused, suprise suprise, by
Microsoft's [and possibly Netscape's] attempted monopolization of the
Internet) which causes the browser to be drafted into service as a
remote graphical terminal. We need to develop a "subscriber connection"
and "customer service interface" and de-couple them from the HTML
browser, or the value of HTML browsing is simply going to disappear.
[...]
>As for being crap, perhaps you can be more specific? I can point out
>some of X's deficiences if you like -- and they are true deficiencies
>in either X or X's client programs; the most glaring one is the
>selection "token" which has been repeatedly misinterpreted by many
>programs (most text apps, if they don't own the token, it will not
>highlight a selected area, and will DEhighlight their selected area
>if they lose the token; this misbehavior makes the traditional Windows
>replace mechanism of Control-X or Control-C, moving over to another
>window, and pasting it over an already-selected area almost impossible).
You mean they're actually supposed to do it the right way? It needs to
be said, though, that this is the "traditional Mac method"; Windows
simply stole that as well as the majority of the rest of their
interface. Linux needs to learn a lot from Mac, I gotta tell you.
[...]
>>It seems to take no time in Windows. Windows is able to process files
>>as fast or faster than Linux according to some benchmarks.
>
>The Mindcraft benchmark states that NT can process files
>up to 2.7x faster, under very heavy load conditions.
>Unfortunately, a c't benchmark suggests the exact opposite.
Even without Chad involved, I think we know which data set to believe.
--
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: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:43 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 17 Feb 2001 02:49:49
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:96jg3p$9hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:MEaj6.27470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> < Perm bits
>> > are ancient, a poor design, and are really unsecure.
>>
>> Describ a way to get over permissions in any *nix that implement perm bits
>> (all of them).
>
>You're not understanding what I'm saying...
>
>It's the mentality. Permission bits are extremely limiting, as they
>only allow one owner, one group, and everyone else.
Well, they may be 'limited', but they not necessarily 'limiting', unless
you can prove that the majority of the planet doesn't do fine with
properly implemented permissions.
>Secondly, permissions are not applied pervasively.
Or improperly implemented permissions, as the case may be. ;-)
>That is, they're
>only applied to files and file/devices. You can't set an ACL on
>whether or not someone can access a specific porition of a file,
What sense does that make, except as a work-around for a poorly
implemented design?
>you can't set permissions on whether or not a particular process
>can perform specific functions with the OS.
No, that would be something other than "permissions". Permissions are
for users, not for processes. I would join you in scoffing at the
pervasive confusion on this regard amongst both Unix and Windows
developers.
>Secondly, this is a little off of perm bits, but related, there's
>almost no auditing, or not serious auditing in Linux, for example
>and in many Unixes.
Nor in Windows; the putative feature of W2K/XP notwithstanding.
>The Unixes that have DAC have a full auditing
>scheme. In fact, that's a requirement of DAC is to verify that
>permissions are applied properly and that users are not circumventing
>the intent of the permissions.
"Intent"? You show yourself to be an amateur in this discussion, in
simply using such a term.
>Perm bits, as agreed by anyone who has a basic understanding of
>secure OS implementations, are kindergarten-level, and are insecure
>by nature.
Proving, I must point out, that you haven't a "kindergarten-level"
understanding of the subject.
--
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: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:45 GMT
Said Se�n � Donnchadha in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 16 Feb 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> The emergence of Microsoft and their hype-and-advertising practices did
>> *not* suddenly make developers base their plans on advertisements. OS/2
>> was, and still is, the superior product, in so many ways that it is
>> ludicrous to suggest that it cannot compete. Yet it doesn't. This
>> isn't due to any failure of IBM marketing, or even caused by the hype
>> that MS spews.
>
>Ah, nice to see that you're still a bullshit-spewing ankle-biting
>trollpuppy, Max.
Why, I haven't heard the term "ankle-biting" since *I* last used it,
Sean. What a shame you're back.
>OS/2 1.x was a great product, but versions 2.0 and up were
>utter shit, and they died precisely because IBM couldn't get their story
>straight.[...]
Yea; OK. Whatever.
Bye, Sean.
--
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: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:46 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 16 Feb 2001
14:45:34 -0600;
>"Se�n � Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:bNej6.5698$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> > The emergence of Microsoft and their hype-and-advertising practices did
>> > *not* suddenly make developers base their plans on advertisements. OS/2
>> > was, and still is, the superior product, in so many ways that it is
>> > ludicrous to suggest that it cannot compete. Yet it doesn't. This
>> > isn't due to any failure of IBM marketing, or even caused by the hype
>> > that MS spews.
>>
>> Ah, nice to see that you're still a bullshit-spewing ankle-biting
>> trollpuppy, Max. OS/2 1.x was a great product, but versions 2.0 and up
>were
>> utter shit, and they died precisely because IBM couldn't get their story
>> straight. Microsoft was focused like a laser to promote Windows while IBM
>> couldn't figure out whether they were trying to sell OS/2, Workplace OS,
>> Taligent, NeXTSTEP, or AIX. Their OS strategy at the time was as clear as
>> mud and and as effective as that canned "monopoly crapware" horseshit you
>> regurgitate every fucking three minutes.
>
>This is a good point. OS/2 has many limitations that would prevent it from
>competing in todays marketplace. that's not to say those limitations
>couldn't have been fixed, they probably could have been, but IBM didn't seem
>very concerned. For instance, the 512MB process boundary was pretty bad for
>years. I believe they finally removed it in a recent version, but it was
>too little too late.
I'm afraid you seem to have shot your own example in the head, there,
Erik. :-D
>IBM was too concerned with proprietary hooks into their mainframe systems.
Yea, whatever.
--
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: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:47 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 16 Feb 2001 23:22:00 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>: In article <96i0us$d7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>
>:>: Demonizing another organization doesn't really help, I'm afraid. IBM
>:>: doesn't monopolize consumer OSes.
>:>
>:>Well, not recently anyway. Their past monopolizations are
>:>singlehandedly responsible for EBCDIC and COBOL lasting much
>:>longer than they had any right to as viable choices.
>:>
>
>: EBCDIC maybe, not COBOL. Computer languages have tremendous
>: longevity if they meet the needs of even a small fraction of the
>: populace.
>
>: LISP and BASIC are still with us after years of being derided by
>: Computer Scientists.
>
>BASIC might fit that description, but LISP was not derided by Computer
>Scientists. They loved it. People who wanted to get practical work
>done hated it because it is a lot of work to think of every algorithm
>as a case of recursion, although it is in theory possible.
I always suspected I wanted to learn LISP. Maybe that's 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 fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:53 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:48:18
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>Sounds like they do a better job than Mandrake.
>
>>Crass generalisation, I'm running Mandrake 7.2, Reisfer FS, Gnome
>>desktop and it is very smooth, very elegant, piece of cake to install.
>
>Except for the group of people posting about Linux Mandrake here, I guess.
What group? There's just you, Pete.
[...]
--
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 fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:54 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:52:03
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) wrote in
[...]
>>I personally disbelieve most of what you write, due to your BS quotient,
>>outright lies and lack of Linux knowledge.
>
>What BS quotient? What lies? I recently proved I wasn't lying, care to try
>and refute that?
[...]
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
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 fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:55 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:56:59
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>Irrelevant.
>>There you go again Pete, gees sometimes your're such a smarmy,
>>condescending, smart-ass!
>
>Irrelevant.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
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: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:56 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:42:29
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>Yet I don't dissect
>>>Windows, so why should I with Linux?
>>
>>You can't tell the difference between a graphics program running on
>>Windows and Windows? You're not nearly as experienced as you pretend
>>then.
>
>Twisty!
Gotcha!
>>>> Dufus.
>>>
>>>Dweeb.
>>
>>Dupe.
>
>Belgian!
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
--
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: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:57 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:41:07
GMT;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <96h61g$oh6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> Pete said "I'm not the only one commenting on troubles about Mandrake
>>> here." You said "you and flatfish." He posted urls (now
>>> unfortunately useless) to deja articles by others; I don't know what
>>> newsgroup they were, or whether they were trolls.
>>
>>Oh yeah. Pete, would you be kind enough to point me to those articles
>>again?
>
>Go back and read the ones I posted earlier. Or are we going to go through
>that again?
I think you missed the point, Pete. Your urls are now useless for
reading the articles you were supposedly citing, since Deja got taken
over by Google.* Could you repeat your reference for whatever messages
they were, so we can see if they were honest posts or just trolls
concerning Mandrake?
*The phrase "Deja got taken over by Google", divorced of awareness of
ubiquitous trademarks, sounds incredibly hilarious, and even ludicrous,
to me.
--
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: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:58 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:38:47
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Pete said "I'm not the only one commenting on troubles about Mandrake
>>here." You said "you and flatfish." He posted urls (now unfortunately
>>useless) to deja articles by others; I don't know what newsgroup they
>>were, or whether they were trolls.
>
>Except, old bean, there are new posts about the unreliability of Linux
>Mandrake.
Well, if there are, they're full of shit. Perhaps they're just posts
about problems with Linux Mandrake, and you have no clue what
constituted "unreliability"? Unreliability is using a Windows system;
you can never ever be sure how its going to fail next.
>And a whole host of people responding and noting similar
>problems. Oh boy do I feel vindicated.
Hoo-wee!
>>As usual, Pete is technically correct, in that he is not the only person
>>to complain about Mandrake, while being trivially mistaken in his point
>>that he and flatfish and most probably the author of the posts he cited
>>are just trolling.
>
>See above, o mistaken one.
<*smirk*>
--
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: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:43:00 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:35:48
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>Which Windows product? Windows 95 and beyond have been reasonable.
>>
>>"Reasonable" is what people are. Win95 and beyond are monopoly
>>crapware. They can neither be reasonable nor rational. They could be
>>competitive, but they're not; that's the 'monopoly' part of 'crapware'.
>
>More of your dogma.
"Beliefs". Its only "dogma" if its someone else's beliefs.
>>>Twisting everything as usual. Is that your goal, to tweak until it
>>>bends out of all recognition?
>>
>>No, my goal is to point out that your passive-aggressive FUD bullshit is
>>annoying. Must I make it that plain for you?
>
>Your opinion, not mine.
Obviously. The phrase "duh" comes to mind.
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:43:01 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:09:59
>In article <wEbh6.6683$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No it isn't. I have _one_ driver under Windows. It's called the Epson
>> 640 Color Stylus driver.
>>
>> Under Linux I selected the Epson 640 Color stylus driver when I
>> installed Linux Mandrake. What do I find? The Gimp doesn't use this, it
>> defaults to postscript instead.
>>
>> Well, DUH!
>
>But what printer and queue did you select from the gimp print menu?
Augh...AUGGHGHGH!
Haven't we been through this enough?
His computer fucked up, OK? His *LINUX* computer FUCKED UP. "The Gimp"
uses some bizarre "printer string", and he didn't get what he expected,
simply because he presumed that the print job would get kicked out, same
as the others did. And it didn't because he didn't know what he was
doing, and Linux isn't as "everything works the same" as brain-dead
Windows, OK?!?
Perhaps MacOS X, or whatever its called now, will bring the Macintosh
look and feel, ripped so long ago by Microsoft, to the Linux world.
Then we'll be in heaven, eh? But to be honest, I'm sick of hearing
about Pete's problem printing.
--
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: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:43:02 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:33:40
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>You lie when you use the word "just". You lie when you use the word
>>"fail". You lie when you use the word "reasonable". Lying isn't only a
>>matter of stating a false fact; being dishonest causes lying, regardless
>>of what you're saying.
>
>You have absolutely no proof that I have lied anywhere, whereas I have
>proof that I haven't been lying.
You're mistaken; I have proof you are lying. It convinced me, and
therefore its proof.
>>Well, you can tell that by looking at the configuration settings in the
>>dialog box; haven't we gone over that? This "reasonable assumption" is
>>a tired pile of bullshit, Pete. Yes, you actually have to know what
>>you're doing to use a computer; ***it doesn't matter how convinced you
>>have been by One Microsoft Way otherwise***. You really would be much
>>happier with a Mac, Pete. It has this 'singular printer model' thing
>>down pat. MUCH better than sorry-assed Windows.
>
>OK, so you would rate "usability" as a tired pile of bullshit, right?
>Let me see you sell that to the public.
No, its just that printing isn't really a problem.
>>No, that is not what a reasonable person would assume, though it may
>>well be what an *ignorant* person might assume.
>
>You call an apple a pear and that's it is it?
No; it resolves to understanding the meaning of the concept
"reasonable". What do you suppose that means, to be "reasonable", Pete?
[...]
>Ah, you're dogma is creeping in. Take a step back, and ask yourself a
>simple question. If a reasonable person is told at installation time that
>he is configuring a printer, would this reasonably person not be right in
>then assuming that anything else from then on would use this printer in the
>way it was configured?
No.
>It has nothing to do with Windows. It has to do with usability. And right
>now, Windows is winning on the usability front, and Linux is coming a poor
>second.
Yes, it is. We've been over this before; perhaps you weren't paying
attention. If your contention is that Linux is not as easy for an
arbitrary user to master, then you are correct. That isn't the issue,
though. The issue is which is a better system, and Linux is a much
better system. Now all we need is for Microsoft to stop stifling
development and innovation by monopolizing, and there'll be plenty of
such "polish", due to the cut-throat nature of a competitive market.
>>>I've not come across that with Windows. I've come across this with The
>>>Gimp and Linux.
>>
>>Well, obviously I have more Windows experience than you do; vastly more,
>>considering how little you would have to have to be unaware of the
>>frequency of problems.
>
>Or perhaps I'm not using the same combination of hardware and software as
>you? Or maybe it's because I avoid most Microsoft applications (except
>Word)?
>
>Or maybe you're just plain lying.
No, I'd say it probably has a lot more to do with avoiding MS
applications. <*snicker*>
--
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: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:43:04 GMT
Said Bloody Viking in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 Feb 2001 03:12:30
>T. Max Devlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: I believe it is every citizens responsibility to provide false
>: information in all such circumstances. I love it; it gives me a warm
>: glow knowing that I'm casually and without a thought causing their
>: database to be just that little bit more worthless.
>
>I thought of going as "Oliver Troglodyte" at APT. 404 address *. The name can
>only be decrypted by people into chimpanzees! ("troglodyte" being the second
>word in "Pan troglodyte" the species name of conventional chimpanzees) A
>second name I considered is Antonio Panisco, a joke on "Jabriol" of
>talk.origins infamy whereby "panisco" is hispanified for "paniscus", the second
>word in the species name of bonobos being Pan paniscus, the "Jerry Springer
>Ape". Oliver Panisco would work out nicely at APT 404 should work fine.
>
>Show off your roots from 5M years ago! (:
That was so bloody obscure my ears are ringing.
"Give a monkey a brain, and he'll swear he's the center of the
universe." -- Anonymous
"You don't understand; if you give a monkey a brain, he's *supposed* to
think he's the center of the universe, *that's the point*. Why the hell
else would you give a monkey a brain?" -- T. Max Devlin
--
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: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:43:05 GMT
Said Bloody Viking in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 Feb 2001 03:38:06
[...]
>Happily, nowadays, anyone with some money (not THAT much) can buy the
>equivalent of a Cray 1 in the form of a DEC Alpha and have Linux on it. Modern
>Pentiums are even better, particularly on multichip motherboards. Get a gig of
>memory and outfit with wide SCSI and you have an old Cray. I have half a cray
>waitiog to be started.
Five or ten $300 computers in a cluster would be even more powerful,
that's the beauty of it. When do you suppose that will be backyard
technology?
>What sucks is how MS slows down even a Cray 1 equivalent to like a Commodore
>64. Anyone can buy a cray, but MS makes it too bloody slow.
...I'm sorry; what were you saying? I was thinking of a Commodore 64
with the power of a Cray....
--
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: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:43:06 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 17 Feb 2001 00:44:57
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:22:57 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>> The shit that MS gets acused of is simply stupid in so many cases.
>
>Sure, some of it is stupid. OTOH, they aren't exactly a lovable company
>and their public image has taken a beating lately. So it is not at all
>surprising that people blame them for things and that few believe them
>about the benefits of their latest market-speak.
>
>> When someone decides to have a civil conversation, you might be amazed
>> at what my opinions are. But, your already starting to wade into the
>> inflammatory.
>
>Whether you think you are a cheeleader or not, your postings here say
>that you are. As do mine, BTW, but for a different team. Maybe I
>should go easy on you though, as you seem to be having a crisis of
>confidence in your team. That seems to be going around. Did you read
>Al Stevens' column in Dr. Dobbs this month?
I missed it. <;-)>
>>> What you just wrote is exactly why I am so skeptical of .NET.
>
>> Well, it's already out there. We're using Beta's of it. People are
>> already implementing sites in it. Companies are beginning development
>> of new projects in it. It's out there, it's just not finished yet.
>
>So what is it? Sounds like it is a big basket into which the marketing
>department places:
>
> 1. Bits of existing technology (e.g. ActiveX, WMP)
> 2. A new language runtime platform
> 3. A new Java-like language
> 4. Some new licensing schemes
> 5. Some new content-control strategies
> 6. Anything else that sounds cool enough to sell #4 & 5.
I'll be god-damned. Bob has defined .NET.
>> Indeed. That's MS's biggest fear, becoming IBM.
>
>It might well be too late. Jim Allchin seems to think that what's good
>for MS is good for the country.
That was GM, not IBM. Were they really as bad as Microsoft, even in
their time, though? I mean, this is the *Internet* we're talking about.
(Still, one can't help but think of the Tuttle (?) and what computing
might have been like without IBM's "oppressive thumb on the wheel of
innovation". Maybe we're over-estimating just how monstrous Microsoft
has been. After all, they were only "along for the ride", really. (But
with an 'oppressive thumb on the wheel', alas.)
--
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
******************************
