Linux-Advocacy Digest #348, Volume #33 Wed, 4 Apr 01 11:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: XP = eXPerimental ("J.T. Wenting")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Scott D.
Erb")
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? ("JS PL")
The control of information... (was Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised)
("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? (Chad Everett)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Craig Kelley)
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "J.T. Wenting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:01:00 +0200
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ad0qd$o6q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> XP = eXPerimental
>
thought it meant ExPert? Experimental systems are of course usually handled
by experts, which might be the origin of people thinking XP means
experimental...
> It integrates the NT kernal.
>
Nope, the Win2K kernel, which is a complete rewrite.
> But it also integrates a part of .NET.
>
Yah, why else create a technology if you're not going to use it?
> At least in the hardware abstraction layer, they are starting with a JIT
> compiler, instead of a pure emulated VM.
>
Not JIT, of course. JIT is platform dependent in that it works only for Java
applications, where .NET will be language independent...
> You heard of Java? That's the "DOT-COM PLATFORM. It runs on HYPE. Usually
> slowly.
>
yeah. The slowly is based mostly on misconception, of course. A
well-programmed Java app does not have to run slowly (though it may be
slower than a native app depending on JVM performance).
Java has been hyped, but what hasn't the last decade?
> The industry is beginning to go through a major restructuring, the first
of
> the post dot-com internet era.
>
The industry has been restructuring for 20 years. Why else have dotcoms
gotten into the picture at all?
> And where is petilon? Has he been restructured?
>
I asked the same question a month ago and got no answer. I think he has
become an acolyte to a new god (maybe even VB .NET).
> But of course, we have the people with a cause. I guess the whole point of
> having the cause in the first place is so reality does not intrude. Until
> the old pink slip comes.
>
And even then they don't blame the cause but the entire world for not
sharing that cause with them.
> Or the discontinued project. Of course, the Java projects will all be
saved.
> These are the PRODUCTIVE ones, no?
>
In my experience Java projects are more productive than C(--) projects, yes.
> Well, in a future parallel university, where 100% pure Java reigns.
There's
> just no more money for these future projects in the CURRENT economy.
>
You're confusing Java with the /. vision of a perfect world where everyone
works for free on open source projects.
> By the time, the whole mess is over, all these things that took big teams
> will be done with some shrink-wrapped software PACKAGED AS A SERVICE.
>
Software should be a service, in the sense that it should perform a function
that serves the user. In which way that software is best implemented depends
on the service and target market. Some may be best created as standalone
applications, while other software can do very well as a web-based or at
least network-centric system.
> Wasn't that the whole point of the PC revolution? Allowing users to point
> and click where programmers were required before?
>
The point was to provide people with cheap alternatives to huge mainframes
and Unix terminals, as well as provide the non-educated user with an easy
way to use a computer for everyday work. I think it did quite well in that.
The current trend towards more networked applications can be traced back to
a desire to keep large networks of PCs manageable by making software
distribution and maintenance centralised instead of having to keep track of
installed versions on each separate workstation.
> "yes," the dot-com promoters would tell the eager investors, "everything
is
> done in state-of-the-art Java."
>
A decade ago they would praise C++, 25 years ago they would praise Cobol.
Nothing has changed there, except maybe the funding required (a PC is
cheaper than an AS/400).
> "We use nothing but million dollar Sun servers. It takes a lot of power to
> properly run Java."
>
Serverside apps having thousands of simultaneous users certainly require
more power than my old P200 can provide. As a workstation you can then use
that old PC, saving where it counts: the large numbers of small machines
instead of the few large servers.
> By the time the restructuring is over, the same capability will run on
Linux
> for $59.95 monthly.
>
Forget it. Linux servers do not provide enough power and stability.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: 4 Apr 2001 13:14:22 GMT
Hmm... I especially liked this part.
"The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary
rights in such communication, including but not limited to rights under
copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant
jurisdiction. No compensation will be paid with respect to Microsoft's use
of the materials contained within such communication."
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: 4 Apr 2001 13:18:41 GMT
In article <oMuy6.27156$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><sigh> Do you guys ever think for youself?
>
>Do you think that any such terms would ever stand up in court?
>Of course not.
>
>Just because it's in a license agreement does not mean it's instantly
>law.
The fact that it's there in the license agreement means that it might
*have* to go to court. And many a small party loses in that scenario, not
because they're in the wrong, and not because the judge rules against
them, but because they couldn't afford the legal fees.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
------------------------------
From: "Scott D. Erb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 08:58:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> >
> > "Scott D. Erb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> >
> > > However, I suspect Marx would be spinning in
> > > his grave to see his ideas associated with Stalin or Mao. Ideological
> > > development is complex.
> > >
> >
> > I have to address this before I address anything else, because I think this
> > is pivotal.
> > Marx was a monster. If you read Manifesto you will find:
Marx was naive. He believed that if you got rid of capitalism you could have complete
liberty, the state would whither away, you would end exploitation. He was motivated
by the industrial slums, and how horrid the workers were paid. He wanted the workers
to rise up against that, and believed if they did they could collectively control the
means of production and everyone would be better off.
He was wrong. Dead wrong. Tragically wrong. But there is no way Marx or Engels (and
I've read a lot of their private writings, including a lot of Engels stuff in the
original German) would have ever supported the kind of brutal tactics of a Stalin, Mao
or Pol Pot.
> > 1. Complete liquidation of private property
> > 2. Liquidation of the family, introduction of "official, open mutual
> > ownership of wives"
> > 3. Children taken from families are brought up by community (Hillary,
> > hello!)
> > 4. Industrial armies, not employer - employee, (and that is from the guy who
> > LOVES proletariat!)
> > 5. Central credit by central banks with total banking monopoly for the
> > State.
> > 6. Age when children start working - 9 years of age (Resolution of Geneva
> > International Congress).
> >
> > If this is not the most monstrous document in the history of the
> > civilization, please, state which one is.
> >
> > This system was implemented four times almost totally - in Hitler's
> > concentration camps, Stalin's GULAG and Mao's re-educational settlements and
> > Pol Pots' Cambodia camps.
> > Partially - USSR, Red China, Vietnam, North Korea.
> > Superficially - Poland, E. Germany, Hungary, Mongolia, Czeckoslovakia
> >
> > Why would Marx be spiining other than out of excitment?
> > Typical (I hate this word) socialist attitude - they all have aberrated
> > Marx. NO! THEY DIDN'T!
> > All socialists remain civilized untill they seize the power. Then the
> > Marxist bestiary begins.
> > EVERY TIME.
Marx was fantasizing about what he thought would lead to a utopia. He was wrong. He
thought the state would whither away, it didn't. His goal was to end alienation and
create perfect liberty, his ideas did not lead that direction. His errors were
typical of 19th century social science (over-determination, bad predictions), and
ultimately the errors in his theories helped lead to the kinds of horror you
describe. But to demonize Marx personally because of that is simply misguided, and of
course irrelevant.
At the very least now Social Democrats and most leftists recognize that the vision of
"scientific socialism" espoused by Lenin and the Communists was not only wrong, but
evil in its actions. Social Democracy does not lead to the kind of evil you
describe. Sweden has no gulags, Norway is not run like Pol Pot's China. You're
overstating your case. The danger comes not from Marx, but from any attempt to
centralize power to try to shape society without that power being accountable to the
people. Marx was dead wrong not to understand or realize that, but I am convinced
that he and Engels personally would have been appalled by what later was done in their
name. Their theory was a failure, but to demonize them is simply silly.
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:50:06 -0400
"Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:28:32 -0400, "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Well, your dimness, It happened when I installed Windows SE. not IE5, as
I
> >have said numerous times in the past. I don't even think IE5 beta was out
> >when the Viper V550 hit the market.
> >The problem was most apparent in IE. And I have never mentioned "IE5"
> >dumbass. So "what changed" was the Windows OS.
> >Ohh...and....
> >If you'd like to use the flawed logic that it's Windows SE (a newly
released
> >OS at the time) that is broken when it won't run the Viper V550 video
card
> >without sporadic screen freezes, then you can go ahead and use that
> >reasoning on Linux. Because at the same time in history I was also trying
to
> >get Caldera Open Linux installed and it wouldn't run the video card at
all!
> >BTW, Linux wouldn't run my modem either, or my sound card come to think
of
> >it.
> >
> Number 1, Win 98 SE that you are referring to was not a new OS. It was
> a bug fix/feature pack to Win 98. The Viper 550 worked great in
> Win98, but didn't in SE? What changed?
Call it what you like.
>
> Number 2, why are you trying to change the subject to Linux when MS is
> the one who changed their software causing all this stuff to break.
> All your post says is that Linux didn't support it.
Causing "all" what stuff to break? This seems to be more of a problem to
everyone else here than it was for me. The screen froze a few times, plus I
couldn't get the card to run under Linux. Didn't want to wait six months for
some hack to write a half assed driver for it in Linux so I just switched
cards. Two problems fixed in under ten minutes.
> Number 3, why didn't you just download the patch from the Diamond
> Mulitmedia site?
That doesn't cure the Linux problem does it?
> Number 5, I had a similar problem when I downloaded IE5 as part of
> some other software I bought. Since I couldn't uninstall the offending
> software, I looked for updates to the video card. Sure enough, I found
> them and fixed the problem (and I havent fixed a major computer
> problem since the late 1980s).
What product did you "buy" that adds IE5 to their DOWNLOAD???? I've never
seen any company tack on a 60 meg file that's available for free elsewhere
anyway!! What company is adding an un-necessary 60mb or so file to their
product download? Hmmm....That's very interesting. You_did_"buy"_it, didn't
you??
> Anyone can swap cards, a true professional identifies the problem and
> fixes it.
That's what I did. And I did it in ten minutes. And it allowed me to dual
boot into Linux. Killed two birds with one stone! God damn I'm awesome!
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: The control of information... (was Re: Microsoft should be feared and
despised)
Date: 4 Apr 2001 14:53:31 GMT
Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Oh... ...my... ...god.
: How arrogant.
: Read it:
[license snipped]
Wow. That is pretty ballsy. For most corporations,
control of information, while oppresive, is their way
of ensuring that they will get a maximum return on
their investments through advertising fees. And yes,
it's wrong. But unfortunately, it's legal (for now).
*sigh* Suit-wearing types really piss me off.
: Basically Microsoft is trying to steal anything of value that you might
: pass through their servers.
Basically yes. But I think its real intent is to
let people know that any information that they
submit can and will be sold to other commercial
entities for the purpose of spammin^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
advertising.
While this is common practice, I have to agree that
it is extremely annoying, not to mention, teetering
on the edge of a downright violation of privacy rights.
Lot's of companies do this unfortunately. The problem
here is that since Microsoft has such a large presence,
there is going to be even more junk mail and spam than
ever before.
But (there's always a but (and thank God for that)),
there is no guarantee that Microsoft's plans are going
to take well, if at all. Not everything that Microsoft
has tried has succeeded.
: I wholeheartedly agree with Chad's suggestion. If you run a mail server,
: refuse to forward mail from any of Microsoft's domains.
I also agree with this practice. However, the wise
thing to do would be to consult with your
supervisor/employer about this before you just tear
off and do it of your own accord. That is, assuming
that you yourself are not the boss. :-)
Products for computers are one thing, but trying
to gain monopolistic status on information is
simply a criminal act, IMHO.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 4 Apr 2001 09:47:01 -0500
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:48:48 +1000, Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Or better yet to put additives in the fuel that stop other car manufacturers cars
>from working
>then refuse to tell them what they are. This isn't as bad as "The Evil Empire"
>OS/Software
>vertical integration because you don't have a practical way to get the source code to
>the OS
>where as you could easily test to find the additive.
> When I wrote an article about this
>http://www.ratrobot.com/ms/ms.htm
>I think I neglected one of the most important factors in the evil empire's ability to
>get away
>with the crap they do. The techno ignorance of the average politician. How many of
>them even
>have a good idea of the difference between an OS and an application? If it was a car
>company
>running 95% of the worlds petroleum industry would the dopey idiots in Washington let
>it
>continue? Maybe the anti-evil empire campaign should invest in some crayons.
>
>Cat
>
You got that one right on the money! I am waiting for some politicians to start
calling
for the ban of open software because they think it's the same thing as Napster.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[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: 04 Apr 2001 09:01:42 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:13:35 GMT, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >
> >restriction claim. More modern environments allow dynamic
> >linking so in many cases there is in fact no copyrighted material
> >distributed - and in some instances dynamic loading where the
> >libraries are not even known prior to execution time. How can
> >you reconcile that with your statement that the code is or isn't
> >derived when it is written?
>
> The dynamic loading one is a very interesting issue indeed, one I hadn't
> considered. It would certainly appear not to be a "derived work" if the
> library isn't required for execution (eg an image viewer that dlopen()s
> various graphics libraries)
According to Richard Stallman, it *is* a derivative work. So for all
GPL folks (not to start Yet Another GPL Thread -- this isn't
flame-bait) it really is such a beast.
Now, what about SOAP or RPC calls? (What's the difference?)
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: 04 Apr 2001 09:04:17 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At what point does Intel just throw in the towel on IA-64?
>
> I dunno. I've had the Alpha "yawning cheetah" ad[1] up on our corporate
> notice board for over a year now, and IA64 seems no closer to reality.
>
> [1] Caption something like "Come on Intel, we're still waiting."
Too bad IA32 chips run faster than Alphas now. :)
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
