Linux-Advocacy Digest #605, Volume #32 Fri, 2 Mar 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Joel
Barnett")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL software being
free ("JD")
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Donn Miller)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (John Hasler)
Re: I am Bobert the Great! (anchorite)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Michael Vester)
Re: So, here's something to chew on... (Michael Vester)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Hijacking the IP stack ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Tim Hanson)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (J Sloan)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:08:20 -0800
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Joel Barnett wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Peanut wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > The problem for Microsoft is that an "old" PC from two years ago
> > > running Windows 98 is a very good PC still for a huge segment of their
> > > market.
> > >
> > > When the time comes for them to upgrade that machine you can bet
> > > they'll want Windows XP and not Linux.
> >
> > 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...
>
I understand it all, it's just that it isn't true. In fact I recently bought
a new AMD Duron 700 based pc with no OS, MS or otherwise. I already own W95
and do not need to buy it or another version of Windows.
Oh, if you like to exercise your pottie mouth, it comes off better if you
have a clue about what you're talking about.
>
> > you already own, spend $30 USD on a nice Linux Mandrake OS in a box.
Save
> > some $$, use Windows for stuff that you can't run on Linux, use Linux
for
> > everything else.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > jbarntt
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
<snip garbage>
jbarntt
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL software
being free
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:20:29 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97pdl9$a95$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I am NOT saying that there is ANYTHING wrong with the GPL. It is easy
> > to pervert the argument into arguing against the GPL. The simple fact
> > is that the GPL is just not a license that denotes free software, unless
> > the all-too-common game of language redefinition is allowed to persist.
>
> I see your point, but I have one issue with it.
>
> You are only considering the freedom of the distributer and not the
> receiver (ignoring the case wherer the receiver is also the distributer,
> for the moment).
>
Note that my concerns are non-discriminatory. Freedom for developers
and end-users both are important. Note also that such freedoms are not
important if the software hasn't been received by each party, in each of their
usable forms.
>
> The free licenses are more free than the GPL for the distributer since
> there are fewer restrictions.
>
And of course, the original code is available under the same free
restrictions no matter what. Each non-owner has only a copy of the
code, and doesn't often control every copy. The only person who has
substantial control of EVERY copy is the copyright holder. That
person is the only one who can give permission to redistribute.
In some cases, the copyright holder can be restrictive, and no matter
the desire of the person who has a copy of software, the copyright holder
can maintain hurdles for the redistributor to overcome.
An owner can indeed relax the redistribution license, but if there is occasion
to relax the license, it is clear that the software wasn't originally free.
>
> However, those licenses enable the distributer to place restrictions on
> the code, so for the person receiving it it will not be as free.
>
Each person who receives each copy doesn't control other copies of the
code. So, that person who receives a copy of the code cannot keep others
from getting other copies by making their own copy unobtainable. For example,
if I don't like Hillary's new book, I cannot keep anyone else from reading the
book by destroying my own copy :-).
>
> So, you have one license with which the software can be free, but also
> heavily restricted and you have another license where the software is
> less free (more restrictions) but will never drop below that level of
> freedom.
>
The recipient of one copy of the code doesn't necessarily have license
to restrict distribution by the original source. Given a worst case of destroying
a copy of the code, that act doesn't take other copies of the code away
from distribution.
There are several fallacies (which I am NOT accusing you of necessarily):
1) Comparing free speech vs. free software. Of course, Free Speech in the
constitution
is the act of speech. If you want to make such a comparison, an individual has the
right
to compose a piece of software or give a speech... That doesn't have any bearing on
free software in the sense of distribution, redistribution or usage rights. Note that
ML King's
family is maintaining very close control of his 'I have a dream' speech. In that
sense, they
are keeping others from giving or using that speech without permission.
2) Destroying or hiding a copy of software as received from a distribution source
doesn't
make the original unavailable from the original distribution source. If software is
changed
by a recipient, a piece of *FREE* software doesn't unduly compromise the freedom of the
add-on author of the derived works in being able to redistribute the combined works
in any way.
3) Free software doesn't add conditions if you wish to give software away. If you
have
source code, you are able to modify it and give it away. If you have binaries, you are
completely free to give it away. With binaries, you can even give it away with added
binary patches, and with source code you can give the source code away with added
source patches. In fact, given free code, you can incorporate such free code into
any reasonably licensed piece of software, and the total license is only slightly
modified
with added credits. Of course, with free software, no substantial act or providing of
intellectual property other than giving binary code itself is necessary for the right
to
redistribute. Given free software, source and/or binary can be distributed without any
additional costs or burden, except for the usually minimal credits clauses as included
with the software.
4) Free software is fully redistributable in source or binary form, seperately or
together. Free
software doesn't restrict redistribution because of the inability to provide any more
information
than the end-user selected portions of the distribution.
Allowable restrictions for free software:
1) Credits.
2) Hold harmless.
3) Legal requirements for export.
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:18:35 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
> GNOME has a superior architecture. KDE is more polished.
I pretty much agree, although I'd have to say KDE has the better web
browser (Konqueror) by far. But, I'd probably prefer GNOME over KDE due
to the fact that GNOME is better able to "play nice" with a wider
variety of Window Managers than KDE does. For example, I had a hard
time getting KDE-2 to work with Window Maker, but GNOME worked
flawlessly with it. Also, the GNOME panel is, IMO, more versatile in
that it can swallow a wide variety of X apps very nicely.
Also, I feel that GTK is a faster toolkit than Qt. I think Qt is better
than GTK by far, but GTK just simply seems faster to me. Also, one
thing KDE has going for it is the fact that it is founded on C++, as
opposed to C for GNOME. Of course, to the end user, the finished
product is more important than what is underneath.
In the end, both are pretty much even, but each have their own mutually
exclusive strengths and weaknesses. Myself, I'm content with Window
Maker by itself. 8-/
====== 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: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 00:58:27 GMT
Mart writes:
> About those constraints: I have a right to free speech, it's in my
> country's constitution. However this right is constrained by libel and
> slander laws.
No, they don't constrain your right to free speech. They just establish
_consequences_ for some sorts of speech.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (anchorite)
Subject: Re: I am Bobert the Great!
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 02:36:38 GMT
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:10:37 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobert Big
>Bollocks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I am Bobert the Great from the planet Bobertron Bow before me!
>
>Ahem :)
>
>-Ed
>
>
>--
> | u98ejr
> | @
> This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
> | .ac.uk
Can you make a winmodem work as well with Linux as it will with
BeOS??? Then I may bow.
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[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: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 19:27:26 -0700
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> JS PL 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.
>
> The average consumer has no more interest in building his own
> computer from scratch as he does in building a kit car.
>
> now fuck off and die, idiot.
>
>
Somehow the general public have this notion that a computer is
difficult to assemble. I am sure that more people build their
own cars than build their own computers. A car takes a fair
amount of knowledge, many expensive tools, space and plenty of
money. That is just to build from parts not from scratch. The
mining, smelting, forging, machining,.. is beyond the average
car hobbiest.
Computers just need a phillips screwdriver. You don't have to
design and fab a chip. About 20-30 screws and a few connectors
(keyed so you can't put them in backwards). Yet, computers
intimidate most non computer people. I am not a car guy but I
do know enough to operate my old car reliably, safely and
cheaply. I know what all the parts are and what they do.
Something that I am not very interested in but I have enough
knowledge to maximize the benefits. Is it so much to expect
people to take a bit of notice to technology around them.
Most people are completely clueless about computers and they
want to stay that way. Microsoft understands and exploits
that. Innovation?
The criminal act is Microsoft selling at different prices to
different vendors. Vendors that are loyal to Microsoft are
rewarded. Ones that aren't loyal are punished. Profit margins
are so tight building pc's, the vendor complies. To buy a
pre-assembled locally without losedos would take some
research. The bigger stores won't sell a losedosless pc but I
might find a "hole in the wall" store that would. Microsft has
made it difficult to get a pre-assembled losedosless pc. I
assemble my own. Much higher quality than any pre-assembled
pc.
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
<snipped>
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 19:34:17 -0700
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Joel Barnett wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joel Barnett wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:97mlhm$1gu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <snip lengthy diatribe against W2k>
> >
> > > >
> > > > If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> > > > alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to
> > > > do something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
> > > > sucks", I guess you came to the right place.
> > >
> > > Translation:
> > > Windows is just as difficult to administrate as Unix,
> > > without the benefit of system stability.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Better translation:
> > AK likes *nix OSen, dislikes MS OSen, therefore (erroneously) concludes
> > that *nix OSen are better than MS OSen. Of course the conclusion does
> > follow if we redefine 'better' to mean 'what AK likes'.
>
> I've used DOZENS of different operating systems (non-Unix)
>
> Microsoft is not merely at the bottom of the heap...it's down in the sewer.
>
> >
Microsoft is the worst. I don't understand why this is even
debated.
> > jbarntt
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
<snip>
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 19:56:42 -0700
John Hasler wrote:
> > About those constraints: I have a right to free speech, it's in my
> > country's constitution. However this right is constrained by libel and
> > slander laws.
>
> No, they don't constrain your right to free speech. They just establish
> _consequences_ for some sorts of speech.
Punative consequences are potential infringement of free speech, but are
just subject to a lower standard of scrutiny than prior restraint.
Libel laws and the like are subject to various the limitations of
Constitutional free speech rights, such as the newsworthiness exception.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:07:07 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
>
> I think this debate is silly anyway; it's pretty obvious that
> Microsoft charges more than they need to, look at their enormous
> profits. They have every right to do so, but denying that Windows
> costs more than it should is silly.
This is a nasty proposition. If they charged a price that was in line with
"typical profits" of a company, they would be accused of dumping and
preventing competition by making it impossible for another company to make a
profit selling at the same prices.
MS's profits are because of their large volume. If they had 20-40% of the
market, they would probably lose money in their current spending level.
That means that no company could spend what MS spends on R&D without having
at least a 50% share of the market, and as such would not be able to develop
the technology to compete.
> > 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.
>
> Windows XP is the same thing as Windows 2000; they use the same NT
> core that NT4 and NT3 did.
>
> Windows ME isn't much cheaper than Windows 2000.
Windows XP will ship in three major versions. Personal, Pro, and Server.
Pro is equivelant to Windows 2000 today and will cost about the same.
Personal has fewer features and will cost what ME costs today.
> > 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.
>
> Yes, but most people use Microsoft Word and not professional tools.
Most professionals do not, and the market for professionals has increased
greatly.
> > > 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.
>
> Because it's not *worth* that much for a word processor. Microsoft
> gets away with it because they have enforced compatibility (IMHO).
> This is the reason why the monopoly is a bad thing for consumers, and
> is the core of the argument.
Wordperfect can read and write word documents just fine.
> WordPerfect, in short, *can't* compete because the market isn't fair.
How is that MS's fault? What could they do to prevent that?
> I know you're going to disagree, but that's the heart of the argument
> as described by Orin Hatch (R-Utah), 18 states' attrouney's general,
> the US Department of Justice and the very conservative judge Jackson
> (appointed by Ronald Reagan).
Uhh.. I didn't see Wordperfect mentioned in the trial.
> > 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.
>
> A word processor is not a niche market.
I should have said a niche product. Mainly the legal profession, which is a
niche market.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:14:39 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97p54h$409$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I mean, ignoring the obvious and inane, like "run 32 bit apps" or
> >> "click the start button", assuming you haven't installed any apps at
> >> all, what bonuses does ME give you over 3.0?
> >
> > I'm not really sure what you're looking for. What can you do in Red Hat
> > 7.0 that you couldn't do in 6.2? What can you do in MacOS 9 that you
> > couldn't do in 8?
>
> Why do you post time and time again without doing any research. By
> comparing the package lists, RH7 has 55 more packages than RH6. I can't
> be bothered to find out which ones they are, but you are free to look if
> you choose.
Those were rhetorical questions. The original poster (Craig, I think) asked
a similar question.
> > Well, there are many new applets. ME does include a Windows Movie
> > Maker, Wordpad, HyperTerminal, disk defragmenter, Windows Media Player,
>
> Win3.11 had Write and a disk defragmenter (under DOS which was required
> for Win311) and IIRC it included hyperterminal too.
Write did not read Word documents, and had a much lower capacity. Win3.11
didn't have a disk defragmenter, DOS did.. and what if you used DOS 5?
> > Personal Web Server, Plug N Play, Thousands of devices that WIndows 3.x
>
> The personal webserver is not worth the disk space its on. The thousands
> of devices didn't exist when win311 was around so I don't think that
> current drivers are a fiar comparison. Besides, given a driver disk,
> those devices would run under Win311.
Someone else used new device drivers and USB to describe what was new in
2.4, why can't I?
And PWS works just fine. It's not feature laden, but it's a personal web
server... claiming the quality of the app disqualifies it is rather shaky
ground for a Linux advocate to take, since the vast majority of the apps
that come with Linux are of questionable quality (90% of the window managers
are very buggy for instance).
> > can't use, such as Winmodems and the like, DirectX, etc...
> Win311 can use winmodems given the correct drivers.
Really? Then it should be quite easy to post a link to a winmodem that
lists Win 3.1 or greater as a requirement.
> Also, you're doing a very unfair comparison.
How so?
> You were comparing RH7 to RH6 and WinME to Win311. So what coan WinME do
> that Win98 can't?
I wasn't the one that made the statement. I was only responding to it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:17:06 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97ph28$ceo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Scott Gardner"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 03:50:59 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Joel Barnett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Peanut wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >
> >>What part of "You *CANNOT* buy a computer without Mafia$oft shitware" do
> >> you not fucking understand...
> >
> > I haven't been forced to buy a MS operating system since 1990.
>
> Unless you buy a laptop.
IBM and Dell both sell laptops with Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:21:51 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
> > > I thought the BSD licence allowed any use, but insisted that you don't
> > > claim you write the code if you nicked it. M$ seem to claim they
wrote
> > > it (which is wrong, if indeed they did not)
> >
> > The BSD licenses was changed a few years ago to remove the advertising
> > clause. You no longer have to give them credit if you use their code.
>
> I know they don't require a credit, but I beleive they do require you
> don't claim to have written what you have not. How this works
> practically however is anyone's guess!
They "require" no such thing.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 03:35:20 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> Christian Brandt wrote:
> >
> > Well, I used up nearly all my bullets now... anyone lend me some?
> >
> > I just need some ugly and evil little arguments to antagonize our
> > BSD-fellows at work (hey, they always do SUCH evil things to us
> > Linux-Buddies and I really could need some information about dead bodies
> > hidden in their basement or other things which
> > h-u-r-t---h-a-r-d---a-n-d---l-o-n-g :-)
>
> I don't think you're going to find many BSD-hateers in this NG. Oh, I'm
> sure there are a few, but most of them, I think, run both BSD AND
> Linux. Probably around 3% of the Linux advocates truly hate BSD, as
> opposed to the 96% that hate Microsoft, Bill G., and/or Windows. ;)
I agree, and there is a world of difference between this rivalry and the
loathing of Microsoft among Linux (and BSD) advocates. No one who
develops or uses either OS wants to exterminate the other, i.e.,
marginalize it to the point of irrelevancy, but that is a stated goal
and strategy of Microsoft. Microsoft wants to be the only gatekeeper
between people and information technology, to become the choke point, to
its own financial and power advantage. Its business model will not
tolerate innovation it doesn't own, can't buy, or can't control in some
way. It is the personality of Gates, one of the most evil people of
this or the last century. That's the difference. Real or perceived
strengths or weaknesses of Microsoft vs. *nix have little meaning next
to importance of stopping this great threat.
Most Linux users and developers have a high respect for those who know
BSD. I frankly don't understand why the respect doesn't appear to be
mutual. Whatever the reason I believe it is short sighted; were it not
for Linux we would all be witnessing the continued unabated march of One
Microsoft Way. Whatever the attributes of BSD, and they are
considerable, Linux is the project that is now running the gauntlet, and
succeeding. Whatever one thinks of the FSF, or the GPL, or the LGPL, or
Linus, or Richard Stallman, or Eric Raymond, or the rest of the big
Linux movers, they are contributing to computing in a unique way. They
are heroes.
> In fact, most Linux advocates are probably more generally open source
> advocates who find Linux more useful than BSD, so they don't truly hate
> BSD per se, but rather find Linux more suitable for their tastes.
>
> Both Linux and NetBSD have a promissing future in the area of embedded
> HW, as well as multi-platform support. There is a healty rivalry
> between the two. For example, I remember the panic expressed on the
> FreeBSD mailing lists when 2.4.0 was still in development about Linux
> vastly improved SMP support. Luckily for the FBSD camp, BSDi had
> already done a lot of the necessary ground work for FBSD's improved SMP
> support for 5.0 release.
>
> In fact, they both kind of excel in different areas, but both are much
> better than the Windows family of products. Both are freeing us from
> the evils of proprietary monopolies, and are proving that there IS a
> very good low-cost (or free) solution to server and other computational
> problems, and that you don't have to rely on $$$-y proprietary software
> solutions.
>
> -----= 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! =-----
--
Yinkel, n.:
A person who combs his hair over his bald spot, hoping no one
will notice.
-- Rich Hall, "Sniglets"
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 03:51:32 GMT
Martigan wrote:
> I have used both, but for me Gnome seems better, Well haven't tried KDE
> 2.1 yet but what does every one else think? Why is one better than the
> other? I'm not looking for Windows similarity!
I have gone back and forth - for some time I was devoted
to KDE, then when helix gnome came out there was finally
a gnome good enough for me to use. But now KDE 2.1 is
looking very good. I'll probably keep up on both for the time
being. I actually use not only gnome and kde, but also bb
and icewm as well. Disk space isnt expensive these days.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:17:49 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:22:32 -0500,
Aaron Kulkis, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> >> If they can ficure out how to grow diamond crystals, and make
>> >> semiconductors on them, that would solve a lot of problems since
>> >> diamond has 10 times the thermal conductivity of copper.
>> >
>> > Ever hear of "Silicon on Saphire" process?
>>
>> Yep
>>
>>
>> > Saphire can be cultured rather cheaply...right now.
>>
>> Yep, but diamond has the highest thermal conductivity of any known
>> material. It would be useful to have the entire semici=onductor chip
>> being that conductive.
>
>Ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
>
>You think making silicon wafers with latice defects far enough apart
>for at least a few useful chips out of every slice is expensive....
>diamonds are far worse.
>
>First, you need the 100 Ton/psi press.
>
>
Diamonds are not made with a press, they are made in a chamber, making borst
is pretty cheap these days. Which is why you see so many "diamond coated" this
and "diamond edged" that.
In fact, the current process for making borst was developed by a australian
high school student who used old oxy tanks and basic pressure gas equipment in
his garage, with scrounged parts.
Making diamonds pure, is simple, making them with specific impurities may be
another matter.
Now buckyballs, that might be interesting also.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
