Linux-Advocacy Digest #599, Volume #32 Fri, 2 Mar 01 16:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
The best site of Linux. In this site there are all of Linux. www.frecell.6go.net
("frecell")
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Rex Ballard)
Re: If I delete using rm? (Donn Miller)
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("Jon Johanson")
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("surrender")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Steve Mading)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Steve Mading)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Steve Mading)
Re: My long signature (Steve Mading)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Mig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:00:07 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > There is no doubt that Microsoft software prices have not tracked
reduced
> > > hardware costs.
> >
> > Nor should they? What is the price of Adobe Photoshop in 1992 versus
today?
> > What is the price of PageMaker? Illustrator? Quark Express? FreeHand?
> > Novell Netware? OS/2?
> >
> > I think you'll find all these are roughly the same prices they were in
1992,
> > if not more expensive today.
>
> Actually, Photoshop is substantially cheaper now than back then. In
> the past you needed very expensive computers to run it, but now the
> bargain machines from the department store can easily do it. It
> followed the classic market of scale model: more people buy it, the
> price goes down.
Nice dodge. You know that's not the point, so stop trying to twist it.
The price of the software is roughly the same.
> Windows does not follow that same rule, for whatever reason. More
> people buy it and the prices go *up* (ie, Windows 2000 is more
> expensive than Windows for Workgroups was -- regardless the price scale
> you use).
Windows 2000 is a workstation class OS, not a consumer OS. Windows XP will
be available in a consumer version that is the same price as Windows 9x/ME
today.
> PageMaker, Illustrator and Quark Express are all niche applications
> that will probably never have a growing market; the same people use it
> today as used it in the past.
I think that's a far stretch. Electronic Publishing has gone through the
roof. The markets for these software packages are orders of magnitude more
than they were 10 years ago.
> For a better comparison, look at WordPerfect's price over time.
That's not a better comparison. WordPerfect became a failure in the market,
and was sold from company to company. They sell it for a fraction of the
cost because nobody will buy it at it's full cost.
> > > The reason should be self-evident. The PC hardware market is extremely
> > > competitive, but there is no competition in the PC OS market, due in
the
> > > main to Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive and monopolistic
practices.
> >
> > Then how does that explain OS/2 hasn't dropped in price? How does it
> > explain that Netware hasn't dropped in price?
>
> They are both niche markets.
That doesn't change the fact that they're PC operating systems. WordPerfect
is also a niche market today, yet it's price has gone down by your own
assertion.
> Windows is not.
Try being consistent.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:06:26 -0600
"Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 2 Mar 2001 16:13:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> wrote:
>
> >Several Linux HW vendors sell box sets with their products. It's not
> >clear that there is an "OEM price", though there may be (for example,
> >we don't know how much Dell are paying RH)
>
> They're stupid if they're paying them anything at all. Slackware or
> Debian can downloaded for free and installed for free on as many
> systems as Dell wants. Some of the more-commercial distros (possibly
> including RedHat) also don't place any limitation on the number of
> systems you install on.
They do pay Red Hat, for a number of reasons (and this is listed on their
web site). 1) They have support contracts to do tech support for Linux.
2) Corporate customers are not comfortable with buying something that you
don't pay a license fee for, they figure you get what you pay for. 3) By
paying Red Hat, they get special access to them for configuration issues
with their own hardware, and modifications to the product specifically for
them if need be.
------------------------------
From: "frecell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The best site of Linux. In this site there are all of Linux.
www.frecell.6go.net
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:11:06 +0100
The best site of Linux. In this site there are all of Linux.
www.frecell.6go.net
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 2 Mar 2001 20:03:38 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 1 Mar 2001 22:38:01 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
:>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>: 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
: Not many. Someone claimed that Solaris could do something like
: this.
: However, whether it can be done or not isn't even relevant to my criticism
: of the argument in question.
It is highly relevant. If it turns out you have cited an example that
is describing a non-computable situation, then it doesn't matter. Such
situations are assumed de-facto to not be included in a computer term
definition of a technology. In other words, it's redundant to say,
"A foo consists of a thing that can do bar, excepting in those
situations where bar would be impossible on any Turing machine.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 2 Mar 2001 20:07:31 GMT
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> :>There are examples of programs I can run where the output of the first
:> :>program will never reach the input of the second under DOS pipes, but
:> :>will always work under a multitasking syetem (under my definition of
:> :>pipes). Since DOS pipes do not fit the definition, they are not pipes.
:> :>
:> :>
:> :>prog_that_will_never_finish | some_other_prog
:>
:> : Oops, my bad. :-) You're right; if the first program never
:> : finishes, the second program will see nothing.
:>
:> Technically what matters is that it never finishes the file, not that
:> the program itself never finishes. The following
:> (obviously contrived) example allowed tail to see the output,
:> even though the feeder program never finished:
: Not counting that your program uses unistd.h,
On my system, unistd.h is where write() is defined. The same function
would be there on DOS under a different header file. Just change header
files to make it work.
: it would still not work
: under DOS, because it has to finish before the next process starts.
Yes, I know. My point exactly. DOS pipes are not pipes.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:10:41 -0600
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Why pay for Windows all over again ? Get a new pc w/o OS, install the
W98
>
> What part of "You *CANNOT* buy a computer without Mafia$oft shitware" do
> you not fucking understand...
Stop lying Aaron. You *KNOW* this to not be true. It's been pointed out
before that *MANY* OEM's will sell you a machine with linux without windows,
such as Dell, Compaq, IBM, etc..
Stop being so dishonest.
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 15:12:34 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============285E72CF3155EAF8406967F6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> I basically dislike Microsoft, and think their Windows operating
> systems range from shit (Win 98) to passable (Win 2000 on heavy
> hardware). The following link makes me sad that the idiocy
> continues:
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/02/28/010228hnvise.xml?p=br&s=3
>
> Partial quote:
>
> THE DOMINANCE OF Microsoft's Windows operating system, the centerpiece
> of the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust case against the company, remains
> undisputed, according to research released Wednesday by IDC.
> Linux remains a bit player on the desktop with less than 2 percent market share,
> although that is a 25 percent jump from 1999, IDC's research shows. Linux also
> continues to garner backing from IT industry leaders, including IBM,
> Hewlett-Packard, and Dell Computer, all of which are shipping workstations and
> low-end servers with the Linux operating environment.
What makes this number particularly interesting is that IDC has raised it's estimate
of Linux'
overal client market share from 1% to 2% of the overall market. This is rather
significant since
the total estimated market base is over 500 million installed systems. This would
indicate that
Linux has roughly 10 million identified dedicated installed Linux COE systems.
Counting clients is always interesting. I might be using Windows NT or Windows 2000
at a particular
moment, because of the "Applications Barrier to Entry" (an application I can only run
under Windows 2000.
But that doesn't indicate either the fact that I have 5 machines that run Linux, that
I prefer Linux to Windows, or that I'd rather be using Linux all the time. It
doesn't take into account, the fact that I choose Linux whenever possible.
Linux also has the ability to emulate Windows 95/98 (as well as 3.1 and NT), and that
Linux has the ability to emulate Microsoft Office applications. At least this
article also included the acknowledgement that many people install multiple systems
from a single CD pack (perfectly legal for most distributions). IDC only counts
"shipped" licenses, not licences issued to "replicators" or to multple registrants.
A dataquest survey indicates that Mandrake Linux is the leading Client environment,
leading the industry for the number of licenses shipped. Much of this is because
Mandrake does offer automatic upgrade service which makes the additional cost of
licensing more attractive.
>
> I'm not so worried about Linux "market share", since it says that it's
> PAID percentage is small. I'm more worried why Win 98, a piece of crap
> if there ever was one, has gone up in shipments.
Keep in mind that the period covered (YE 12/2000) included mostly the period prior
to Windows ME.
Windows 98 shipments include all of those licenses shipped as "bundleware"
preinstalled on PCs sold at retail and through most direct marketing of major OEMs.
Although Dell and HP do offer Linux preinstalled, you much make minimum purchases,
you have to pay premium prices, and you can't order them through traditional channels
(1-800 phone, web site).
Many of the more successful vendors are breaking ranks in more subtle ways like
installing Lotus SmartSuite, StarOffice, or WordPerfect suite instead of MS-Works or
Office.
> Perhaps there are misleading numbers here. However, it looks like Microsoft
> is now coated with Teflon. Even their crap sells.
Teflon has nothing to do with it. Microsoft simply threatens to revoke the license
of any OEM who breaks ranks and sells Linux as a general offering. The CEOs of Dell,
Compaq, and Gateway are partucularly vulnerable since they don't have other sources
of revenue. The threat is not insignificant. The CEO
> Chris
>
> --
> [X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
> [ ] Check here if you're a dazed follower of Bill Gates
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============285E72CF3155EAF8406967F6
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============285E72CF3155EAF8406967F6==
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If I delete using rm?
Date: 2 Mar 2001 14:05:43 -0600
Interconnect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
I'd say your best bet is to do weekly back-ups of your /home, /etc, and /var
partitions. I've saved my ass more than once this way.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 20:12:58 GMT
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:27:32 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A criminal record 3 feet long cannot be waivered away.
>180 convictions, even class D misdemeanors, will be a bar to enlistment...
Is that how many convictions make a three foot long record?
We may have hit upon your area of expertise, after all!
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 2 Mar 2001 20:16:31 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:97mmnh$gvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> :> TSR's are not processes any more than the UNIX kernel is a "process".
:>
:> : What is it then? You claim that a process is the instance of running
: code.
:> : The UNIX kernel doesn't run in the context of the user processes, so
:>
:> The UNIX kernel behaves more like a Windows DLL than a Windows EXE.
:> It doesn't "run" (except at boot time when it's setting itself up,
:> much like a TSR). The kernel is a big library that other processes
:> can call into to implement the more low-level parts of their code, and
:> those parts of the code that require permission. The "mode switch" is
:> NOT a "context switch". It's a switch to turn off all the traps that
:> were put on memory and hardware so the process can do privileged things,
:> but the same process that ran the user-mode code also runs the
:> kernel-level code after the switch in modes is made.
: So you're suggesting that the kernel scheduler requires a user mode app to
: call into the kernel before it can actively schedule the program?
: Yes, user mode calls into the kernel run in the user context (not entirely
: true, such as in Microkernel based systems), but the kerenel itself also has
: a context for things like interrupt handling and scheduling.
The data is in the kernel, but the process is merely a process that
*uses* the kernel's code extensively. The only difference, theoreticaly
between this and a user process is that it spends a greater percentage
of its time in the kernel. Think of something like this:
int main( ...blah... )
{
... do a little setup ...
... call kernel's do-scheduling-algorithm function
(which loops forever)
}
There are processes like this that spend their whole lives in
kernel mode, but the kernel is not a process. (We are quibbling
over definitions. In UNIX terminology, the kernel is not a
process. It's the pile of code in memory that is USED by the
OS's processes. This does not mean that there can't be system
level processes that are treated a bit differently than userland
processes, just that those don't fall under the vocabulary term,
"kernel".)
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 2 Mar 2001 14:22:08 -0600
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20143
two excerpt:
"Microsoft's market dominance on the desktop--and increasingly, on the
server as well. According to the report, Microsoft's desktop share has grown
from 89 percent last year to 92 percent this year. But what's even more
amazing is that Microsoft's share of the server market has outgrown upstart
Linux, leaping from 38 percent of the market last year to 41 percent this
year. Linux also grew, but at a slower rate than in the past, and the growth
of this open-source OS is apparently coming at the expense of Novell and
various versions of UNIX, not Windows 2000 and Windows NT. Linux grew from
25 percent of the market last year to 27 percent this year."
and
"In related news, the latest Netcraft survey of Web server software usage
shows Windows servers with a strong lead over Linux and UNIX; about 55
percent of all secure Web servers run on Windows. Linux is less than one
third of that figure. Measuring secure Web server server (that is, SSL or
Secure Sockets Layer server) usage is considered more accurate than blindly
measuring every "mom and pop" Web server out there. Anyone can (and often
does) set up a Web server on a cable or Digital Subscriber Line (DSL)
connection, but that doesn't make for relevant statistics. Netcraft measures
secure Web servers to gain an idea of who's using what in the real world. "
------------------------------
From: "surrender" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:40:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nick Condon"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote something like:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (al) wrote in <3a9e5fa8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20143
>
> Or "Linux making gains in server market"
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2691286,00.html
>
> Same figures, different spin.
And this time it's not from www.lininformant.com :)
--
Greets
surrender
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 2 Mar 2001 20:26:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
: "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:>
:> These 'morons' were merely reading the license agreement, which states
:> quite clearly if you don't agree to the license agreement you are
:> entitled to return the product for a full refund.
: And because they were morons they very quickly found out the way the real
: world works.
That MS lies to its customers and doesn't do what it says it will
in its OWN license agreement? Yeah, we already knew that. The
"refund day" was an attempt to publicise this fact. People
didn't really expect it to work.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 2 Mar 2001 20:21:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
: It is not anyones right to demand that a certain product be supplied to
: them. And that's the whole gaping flaw in the argument. A while back some
: morons came up with some kind of idea that it was their right to get a
: refund on windows portion of a system if they didn't load the software.
You must be referring to the "morons" who wrote MS's own end user
license agreement. THEY said you should return it for a refund if
you don't agree to use it. But when they were called to task on this,
it was proven that MS doesn't make good on this claim.
: They
: soon found out they had only the right to either buy, or not buy a package
: that someone decided they would like to sell.
: You have two choices, buy what someone decides to sell you, or don't. That's
: the rules of the game. Get over it.
The refund-day people were merely trying to get MS to actually
uphold its OWN license agreement.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 2 Mar 2001 20:28:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
: "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> > Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one who has
:> > ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to pay
: extra
:> > for an OS they didn't want.
:>
:> Yes, they have.
: How so? At what time in history has it been impossible to buy the hardware
: to build your own computer? Seems to me that individual hardware channels
: were there long before people were building and selling packages that
: included MS Windows. Your about as dumb as they come.
How do you put together a computer without a disk drive or CPU?
At various times BOTH those products had the MS tax on them, even
when sold individually.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My long signature
Date: 2 Mar 2001 20:43:50 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : Fuck you all
:> : The signature will continue to grow at a rate of 1 user per day from now
:> : on until you all get over it
:>
:> It's March 1st today. You wrote this on Feb 27th. Your sig file
: I *DID* *NOT* WRITE THAT.
: 1) Check the path
:> still only goes up to "K:" in your most recent posts I've read.
:> Are you really serious about adding 365 new users to it per year?
:> I'm calling your bluff. If you try the above, people will not
:> "get over it", they will simply killfile you and you won't have anyone
:> to play with.
: Are you an idiot?
: You have been trolled by meow/woof
Sorry. In most cases I could assume the genuine person wouldn't
be so trollish as to make such a silly statement. In your case
I couldn't assume that.
I don't have the time to read all the headers of every single message
to see if it is genuine before replying.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:50:26 +0100
Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> > It is my opinion (and apparently that of other security folks) that
> > security software must be held to a higher standard and part of
> > distributing security software is ensuring that users always have
> > the latest updates and patches rather than just posting them
> > passively to a site somewhere.
> >
>
> I assume you mean the high standards (snicker) that Micosoft has
> shown us? Where we don�t get patches for REAL security flaws for
> weeks, sometimes months.
>
> Chad, we all know that you were bathed lots too hot when small.
> But that you were combed later with a sledgehammer was new.
What about a bet?
Someone puts a machine on the net running SSH1 and Chad is given the task
and permission to break in through the Internet.
That should put an end to this silly discussion.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
