Linux-Advocacy Digest #589, Volume #32 Thu, 1 Mar 01 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) (Barry Schwarz)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Andy Newman)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Bob Hauck)
Re: RTFM at M$ (Bob Hauck)
Re: why open source software is better (Bob Hauck)
(Humour) Jackson Denies Bias Against Microsoft ("Adam Warner")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: The Windows guy. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: If I delete using rm? (J Sloan)
Re: The Windows guy. (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.)
Date: 2 Mar 2001 02:12:46 GMT
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:13:01 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> An 8th grade education, history of antisocial behavior, and a three
>> foot long criminal record?
>
>In the US Army, that's 2 reasons that will bar you from even being
>able to enlist as a private.
Since the army no longer requires a high school diploma, anti-social
behavior is not recorded unless it is also illegal, and a criminal
record is only one thing (and possibly irrelevant since neither
traffic nor parking offenses are impediments to enlisting), what two
did you have in mind?
<<Remove the del for email>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:37:27 GMT
al wrote:
>It bugs you to see the almighty Linux being pushed away by Windows, doesn't
>ti ?
I doubt Linux is the loser, the various figures being touted around
the news sites say it increased too. The losers appear to be SCO
and Novell.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:43:43 GMT
On 1 Mar 2001 04:29:23 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:43:46 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>lOn 28 Feb 2001 03:19:11 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry about responding twice, but some stuff just ocurred to me.
>I don't appear to have explained this very well.
>
>I am *not* comparing the price of a game with Windows.
>
>What I am doing is pointing out that game companies don't lower their
>prices just because they're doing well. And they're not obliged to
>do so.
No, they aren't. But they have competition, which limits their freedom
to set prices however they want. Microsoft has a lot more flexibility
in that regard.
I'd really rather not bring the game market in at all though. It
resembles the music business much more than the traditional software
business. What goes on their may be entirely different than what goes
on in the operating system market.
>> I don't whine about the price of Windows, as I don't buy it. I do
>> observe that the retail price has been quite constant in spite of the
>> volume being much higher now than five or ten years ago. I can also
>
> My point is, so what ? The fact that they are succesful does not in any
> way oblige them to reduce their prices.
That wasn't my argument. My argument was that competitors oblige them
to either reduce their prices or add more value. But there haven't been
any competitors on the desktop.
Note that I am also not saying that MS can get away with major gouging.
If they raise the price too high, or make the software too shitty, then
it creates incentives for competitors to appear. To prevent that
happening, they have to be a bit smart about how they price things and
they have to appear to be addressing user needs (hench the "innovation"
chant). Changing away from Windows has high costs for users, but at
some point there will still be reason to change and they have to be
careful to keep well away from that point to keep their position.
I think the argument that MS has harmed consumers by causing high prices
is a weak one. But it is not entirely without merit.
>> observe that Windows seems to be a higher percentage of the system cost
>> than it used to be.
>
> I think this is a very hard claim to support. It's certainly true if
> you compare todays budget system with yesterday's top of the line, but
> barring this sort of blatant intellectual dishonesty, it's not really
> true. Was Windows OEM really much less than $50- five years back ?
It is not a hard claim to support at all. I strongly suspect that the
average computer sold today is priced lower than the average computer of
five years ago. Gateway and Dell weren't selling $700 PC's five years
ago. If it is the case that what Erik claims is true and the price of
OEM Windows hasn't changed, then Windows represents more of the total
cost on average.
And for the record I don't accept Priceline as the authoritative source
on how much OEM's pay for Windows. If we are to do that, we ought to
accept Cheapbytes as the authoritative source for Linux pricing.
> $50- is already fairly cheap.
That is an arbitrary judgement.
> I think you'd have a hard time making a case that the sales increase
> resulting from further reduction in price would justify the loss of
> per-sale revenue.
You certainly would, since they have 93% of the desktop market according
to IDC. There's not a whole lot of room for growth beyond growth of the
market itself, which is apparently slowing. But note that they could
charge $100 and you could make the same argument.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:43:48 GMT
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:05:06 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:36:06
>>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:36:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>> Actually, there is a great deal of value in supporting ping to
>>> 'broadcast addresses' (it doesn't really broadcast, by the way)
>>
>> What happens is that all the machines on the subnet answer. This is
>> the basis of the "smurf attack".
> Why did you take my statement to indicate I didn't understand this?
I was mainly responding to your implication that I didn't.
Perhaps you could stick to the point and tell me what the value to me is
in allowing random people to ping my broadcast address. If you want to
map my network it bothers me not in the least if you have to spend a bit
more time on it, being as I'm not paying you or anything. I've done my
part in giving a reason to disallow broadcast pings.
>> CERT and Cisco both recommend that you filter ICMP to broadcast
>> addresses at your border. The recommend this because of the smurf
>> problem.
>
> Actually, they recommend this because of the paranoia problem.
No, they recommend it because people were using the smurf attack to
cause trouble. Maybe you could enlighten me on what the correct
response to smurf is if it is not to block broadcast pings. You could
also send a post to Bugtraq, there are Cisco people who read that.
In an ideal world smurf wouldn't work because everybody would do proper
filtering so users could not forge packets. We do not live in an ideal
world.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:43:46 GMT
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:23:22 +0100, Mart van de Wege
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The high point is irrelevant. That was reached in a market plagued by
>'irrational exuberance' (10 points if you can identify the quote).
Alan Greenspan. What do I win?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: (Humour) Jackson Denies Bias Against Microsoft
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:58:34 +1200
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0102/jackson.shtml
Does anyone think that a new legal tactic as a defendant could be to behave
as irresponsibly as possible in Court in the hope that the Judge gets so
thoroughly disgusted with the defendant that the Judge later expresses that
distain?
I am still incredulous that Microsoft manipulated some of their video
evidence:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-338153.html?tag=rltdnws
(And even more incredulous that they managed to get caught).
That incident is also recorded here:
http://www.thestandard.com/article/article_print/0,1153,3419,00.html
"On Tuesday, Boies stunned the courtroom by pointing out to Allchin a
discrepancy in Microsoft's original video demonstration that called into
question whether delays shown on a personal computer were caused by the
Felten removal program or by Win98 itself. The damage to Allchin's
credibility got worse on Wednesday when Boies proved to the court that
several different computers were used during the filming of the
demonstration, showing, for example, how an icon for the Microsoft Outlook
e-mail program appeared in one frame and was gone in another."
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:04:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <97k6f1$jsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Dan Pop" writes:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
> writes:
>
>>In article <97ja1k$667$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Dan Pop" writes:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>It doesn't! The following prototype is OK, although it doesn't match
>>>the <stdio.h> one byte-for-byte:
>>>
>>> int printf(const char format[], ...);
>>>
>>>Furthermore, I believe even this prototype is OK:
>>>
>>> int printf(char *format, ...);
>>
>>The type of this 2nd form is incompatible with printf()'s standard type
>>so calling printf() with this declaration in scope results in undefined
>>behaviour.
>
>Not so. The type compatibility in this context ignores any qualifiers.
>N869 (6.7.5.3 #11):
>
> (In the determination of
> type compatibility and of a composite type, each parameter
> declared with function or array type is taken as having the
> adjusted type and each parameter declared with qualified
> type is taken as having the unqualified version of its
> declared type.)
const char * is not a const qualified type, it is a pointer to a const
qualified type. What the section you quoted is saying is that, for
example:
int printf(const char *const format, ...);
is a compatible declaration of printf. A top level const in a function
parameter means nothing from the point of view of the caller therefore
has little or no value in a function declaration, but is useful in a
function definition to specify a parameter variable that can't be modified
in the function body.
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:16:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Aaron Kulkis" writes:
...
>Otherwise, it makes printf into a de facto reserved word.
Yes, the standard makes it very clear that standard library function
names like printf are reserved identifiers.
>since printf is not a reserved word (de facto or otherwise), the
>premise is violated, therefore the conclusion is, at best, not proven.
False premise, false conclusion.
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:03:55 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> >> >> >> A simpler definition is:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> a mechanism which allows the output of one process to be put in
> >> >> >> to the input of another process in the order that it (the data)
> >> >> >> was outputted.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You need to include some sort of reference to the fact that
> >> >> > process1 and process2 are running simultaneously (as opposed to
> >> >> > sequential execution...i.e. process2 must be able to start
> >> >> > executing while process1 is still running).
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't need to specify that process 1 and 2 are concurrent, since
> >> >> it can be deduced from the definition.
> >> >
> >> > No..there's wiggle room to allow perverted interpretations such as
> >> > the DOS implementation.
> >>
> >> No. Under my definition, what DOS has are _NOT_ pipes.
> >
> > You failed to word it in such a way that completely precludes the usage
> > of temp files.
>
> No I didn't. Read some of my other posts in the thread. This definition
> of pipes can be shown not to work using temporary files. That completely
> precludes the use of temporary files.
I'm on your side...I'm just saying that your definition has a
hidden loophole in it.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> | u98ejr
> | @
> Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
> | .ac.uk
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:05:55 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> >> >> Well, not everything is perfect on Linux. For instance yesterday,
> >> >> while I was testing the NIC of a new laptop, it continuously
> >> >> complaining about network being unreachable, instead of telling me
> >> >> plainly that the network cable I was using was unplugged at the
> >> >> other side. :-)
> >>
> >> > That's only because the your NIC manufacturer didn't include the Time
> >> > Domain Reflectometer option . :-)
> >>
> >> They did but It(tm) is Only(tm) Avaliable(tm) under Micros~1(R) Windows
> >> (tm).
> >>
> >> -Ed
> >
> > Well, I've not yet wiped clean the Win(tm) 98(tm) the laptop came with.
> > Tomorrow I'll test in the same conditions with Micros~2(R) Windows(tm)
> > 98(tm), and I'll let you know. After all, I had to pay for it, so I can
> > use it.
>
> If you read the docs very carefully, you'll find that they haven't
> implemented this new feature yet :-)
>
> As an aside, I don't know why NIC card manufacturers haven't put a
> machanism on the crads to detect an unplugged cable. It shouldn't be too
They do. It's a little "connectivity" LED.
If it glows, you're hooked up right.
If not, then you've got a problem.
> hard since when plugged in, the cable is plugged in to a matched load, so
> no reflections occur. When it is unplugged, the signals should get
> reflected, which should not be too hard to detect.
>
> -Ed
>
>
> --
> | u98ejr
> | @
> Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
> | .ac.uk
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If I delete using rm?
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 03:07:28 GMT
Interconnect wrote:
> If I accidentally delete a subdirectory and files is there any way of
> recovering these in Linux. That is without resorting to the tape backups?
>
> Thanks for any hints or tips.
If there has been no disk activity in that partition,
the data would still be there, but when it comes to
actually recovering it in a usable form, the devil is
in the details.
IIRC there's an ext2 file recovery howto floating around
somewhere - I'll bet google could lead you right to it.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:07:02 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : On 1 Mar 2001 17:57:58 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
> :>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :>: Actually, this does not demonstrate that a multitasking system is required
> :>: to satisfy your definition of "pipe". It demonstrates a limitation of
> :>: single process systems, and that's about it (unless you specify that your
> :>: example must work).
> :>
> :>: Otherwise, we can invent contrived examples that will fail almost anywhere.
> :>
> :>: eg:
> :>
> :>: process_that_reboots_the_system | tail -3
> :>
> :>: This only works on systems that can save their state to disk.
> :>
> :>Huh? How? The data sits there in the tempfile-pipe unused
> :>because the 'tail' program never actually gets run. After
> :>the reboot the system isn't going to remember that it was about
> :>to execute the 'tail' command on that pipe. The above example
> :>doesn't demonstrate what you are trying to demonstrate. It
> :>fails on BOTH multitasking systems and uni-tasking machines.
>
> : Try reading the post again. It fails on machines that can't save
> : their state to disk. (but doesn't necessarily fail on all multitasking
> : machines)
>
> Okay, so just how many systems can actually do that? It strikes me
> as a fundamentally impossible problem (A process cannot save its own
> state, because its state is changing while it is running the code
> that writes its state. It might be possible for the OS to save the
> state of userland processes, but somewhere along the line you have
> to have the 'last' process in the OS save its own state.)
HURRAY CORE MEMORY!
(too bad nobody uses it!)
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
