Linux-Advocacy Digest #463, Volume #33 Mon, 9 Apr 01 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Craig Brozefsky)
invitation letter (Youri Podchosov)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("Chris Z. Wintrowski")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Chad Everett)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Chad Everett)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Chad Everett)
Windows in space...... ("Patrick McAllister")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Karel Jansens)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (pip)
Re: Windows in space...... (pip)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (Nick Maclaren)
Windows in space...... (Chad Everett)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman (Austin Ziegler)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman (Austin Ziegler)
Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis (WesTralia)
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (Chad Everett)
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (Chad Everett)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Rob
Robertson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 Apr 2001 09:13:13 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You never have to spend more than something is worth unless there
> is a monopoly controlling the supply.
This is not true, even in non-monopoly cases. The price paid above
"worth", assuming we agree on what "worth" is, fluctuates quite a bit.
Perhaps you are equating price under competition with "worth"? That
would seem to fit the comment you made above. I think it's useful to
keep price and "worth" as seperate concepts, because it helps us
understand the dynamics of market pricing, and production better.
The range the price can fluctuate within is the price elasticity of
the market. Some markets are very elastic, the market for designer
lip gloss, or high-end audio software for example. Others are not
(electricty and water).
--
Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In the rich man's house there is nowhere to spit but in his face
-- Diogenes
------------------------------
From: Youri Podchosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: invitation letter
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 10:16:17 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============C4E7253203ED5CEC47781875
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
L Youri N. Podchosov (ynp) /// Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] L
L Senior NOC Engineer ())) Web: http://www.ynp.net L
L Digital Telemedia, Inc. /// B:212-625-5365 H:718-680-9024 L
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
==============C4E7253203ED5CEC47781875
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii;
name="Invitation-2001"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="Invitation-2001"
Youri N. Podchosov
139 72nd Street
Brooklyn, NY 11209
(718) 680-9024
April 12, 2001
Consular Section
U.S. Embassy to Ukraine
vul. Mykoly Pymonenka, 6
Kiev 01901
Ukraine
Dear Sir/Madam:
I, Youri N. Podchosov, would like to invite my daughter, Yuliya
Degtyaryova, to visit us in the United States this summer for
two and a half months starting around the middle of June. For
the entire period of staying in the U.S., my daughter will live
with us at the following address: 139 72nd St., Brooklyn, NY 11209,
tel. (718) 680-9024.
I am currently employed at Digital Telemedia, Inc. (DTI, 11 Beach
St., 3rd Fl., New York, NY 10013, tel. (212) 625-5300), as a Senior
Network Operation Center Engineer, and I have the necessary finances
to support my daughter in the U.S. All related expenses, including
airfare, accommodation and required insurance are my sole
responsibility.
I request you to grant her a multiple entry B-2 visa to facilitate
her entry and stay in the U.S.
In case you have any further questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
==============C4E7253203ED5CEC47781875==
------------------------------
From: "Chris Z. Wintrowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.tv.star-trek.voyager,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.startrek
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 14:17:47 GMT
Goldhammer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:26:42 GMT,
> Chris Z. Wintrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Greenspan's a hack. What do you expect?
> >
> >I really don't see why you are falling for his nonsense. It's like
> >you've read a bad review of your favourite film and you're discussing
> >the review with your friends, hinting that the critic should have his
> >knee caps summarily removed. What's the point?
>
> That's a fair point. Let me offer an analogy.
>
> Do you ever watch Star Trek Voyager? If you're a geek,
> there's a good chance you catch the later episodes at
> least, if only to gawk at 44-Of-D. Other than that, you
> probably think the show is total crap, that Roddenberry
> and his intellectual heirs are hacks. Yet for some reason,
> you keep watching... watching... if only for the sheer
> joy of hinting to your friends that the scenes where
> Kes eats bugs, Nog is recycled as an adolescent Kazon,
> the HoloDoc sings operettas, Seska transmogrifies into
> a yet-more-hideous cackling lunatic, and Janeway turns
> into an iguana... fully justify the removal of Rick
> Berman's kneecaps.
My my, we're quite the Voyager fan!
Anyone who chows down on cheese procured from the fetid, crab infested
goins of Prick Vermin and Brannon "Rick's Gimp" Braga is either gay, or
a connoisseur of modern-day TV where the scriptwriters reach farther
than they've ever reached before to get that next steaming hot dollop of
diarrhea to cram down your throat.
Personally, the only reason I watch Voyager is to get an eye-full of
Jeri Ryan wearing that skin-tight catsuit, and to laugh at that
snivelling idiot Berman because the only reason Jeri Ryan is shagging
him is to make sure she gets a part on the forthcoming fifth installment
of the Berman/Braga celebration of shit.
- Chris Z. Wintrowski -
* "I don't think we can afford to keep doing business as usual" *
- Chakotay
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Apr 2001 09:08:26 -0500
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:55:52 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Street wrote:
>> >
>> >Grep is your friend.
>>
>> Twenty minutes with it will not reveal what you need though
>
>That's for sure. I found the reference to "X-Mailer" in a #define,
>but it wasn't used anyway else in the code! I found where a
>UNAME macro is used, and a few other clues, but still haven't
>found where the posting host string is assembled.
>
>Will look later, when time allows.
>
>Chris
>
You're barking up the wrong tree. Just get slrn source on linux
and modify the headers it assembles and make it look like you
are runnning Mozilla.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Apr 2001 09:12:12 -0500
On 8 Apr 2001 21:29:24 -0700, kirk@do_not_spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I spend the last 3 hours trying to mount a CD on linux and finally
>gave up. I wasted too much time. Booted windows NT, stuck the CD in,
>and on I went to work.
>
>If anyone thinks this junk will compete with windows they must be
>out of their minds.
>
>And before anyone tells me I am a newbie, I am not.
>
>I had a IDE r/w CDROM. with SUSE 7.1, kernel 2.4, and KDE latest and greatest.
>
>Wanted to burn some files into the CD (which on windows is a breeze).
>
>so I started KonCD (or whatver that thing is called that comes with KDE).
>of course , it did not see it and no reason is given. searching and
>reading I found I need to build a new kernel with scsi ide emulation mode
>(imagin if someone on windows has to rebuild windows to write a CD).
>
Someone with Windows can't rebuild window even if they wanted to.
Short answer. This guys bought a really crappy CD R/W drive. Probably
has a WinModem too.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Apr 2001 09:16:05 -0500
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:11:14 +0100, pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>>
>> First of all, I said CD-WRITER YOU FUCKING LUSER
>> Second of all, get a type writer and give everyone a break.
>> Thirdly, why did you use Linux?
>
>Calm down Matt!
>
>While you and I _can_ get the old CD-Writer working under Linux, I would
>not say that the process was "easy". Making IDE-APTI cd-writer into a
>pseudo scsi device using new kernel modules would certainly put off many
>people who are not really into computers. So in a sense, I have some
>sympathy with the "it's too hard" comments. If we are to take Linux to
>the people then we will have to change the RTFM attitude and let
>intuitive interfaces and even better automatic configuration scripts
>take their place. While the OP may have been a troll, there is a seed of
>truth in everything. It would be nice to let people without an extensive
>knowledge base use Linux easily, and this is a tricky thing to do
>without making the compromises that Mafia$oft of Apple has.
Frankly, I'd be happy if the users on the bottom half of the bell curve
just kept using Windows. Those who want to do real computing can
continue to use Linux and see it improve daily. I mean, do we REALLY
want all these whining morons asking us all the time how they can
get their WinModems to work under Linux so they can log into the
Internet ( oops, I mean AOL).
------------------------------
From: "Patrick McAllister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows in space......
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:31:53 -0400
Probably a duplicate post, but if not, makes for a funny....kinda.....read.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,42912,00.html
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:21:59 +0000
WGAF wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > WGAF wrote:
> > >
> > > Luckily for Linux, there are people who can see behind the hype.....
> > >
> > > http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/01/12/index3a.html
> >
> > The article was written by another WinTroll. All too easy to spot.
>
> Life is easy for you, isn't it? Go hug your fat, bloated bird....
Has Claire thrown another fit, one wonders?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:47:04 +0100
Chad Everett wrote:
[snipage]
> Frankly, I'd be happy if the users on the bottom half of the bell curve
> just kept using Windows. Those who want to do real computing can
> continue to use Linux and see it improve daily. I mean, do we REALLY
> want all these whining morons asking us all the time how they can
> get their WinModems to work under Linux so they can log into the
> Internet ( oops, I mean AOL).
:-)
Well, the formula I can use to counter this argument is as follows:
More Windows People Switching To Linux (MWPSTL)
Linux Software Availability (LSA)
Developer Interest (DI)
Hardware Support (HS)
Market Support (MS) - such as RH "services" or other support companies
MWPSTL => LSA++ && HS++ && MS++ => DI++ => LSA++ ........ ad infinitum
I'd like Linux to be not only the finest OS (including software and
hardware support) but also the most used. But then again, maybe that
just because I am a megalomaniac. Actually I rather like Windows now
because I don't do any work on it therefore it is really rather more
stable. Now armed with a Belkin OnmiCube I really _can_ have the best of
both worlds :-)
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows in space......
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:03:31 +0100
Patrick McAllister wrote:
>
> Probably a duplicate post, but if not, makes for a funny....kinda.....read.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,42912,00.html
:-)
I guess now the commander does not shout "Red Alert" anymore, more
likely "Blue screen Alert"
Scotty: "Captain, the delithium crystals are almost out and the fucking
server has crashed again"
Kirk: "How long until you fix it Scotty?"
Scotty: "Well the damm reset button is jammed captain, I cann'i reboot
it!"
Kirk: "Computer sound the evacuation alarm"
Checkov: "It's crashed captain - there is nothing else for it - give the
order"
Microsoft Support Desk: "Yes hello Mr Kirk thank you for calling and we
appreciate your custom, I am afraid you have run out of incident packs,
would you like to purchase some more at our special reduced rate?"
Scotty: "AHHHHHH WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!! "
Mafia$oft: Where do you want to go today?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Maclaren)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: 9 Apr 2001 15:17:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ben L. Titzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> On 9 Apr 2001, Nick Maclaren wrote:
|> >
|> > Take a look at the VS Fortran features for MVS/ESA. They were (and
|> > maybe are) definitely "easy" to use, though perhaps not "very easy".
|> > The reason that this particular extension is different from getting
|> > out of the 16-bit hole is that the latter affected every pointer,
|> > code and data. Yes, it can be and has been done in a user-friendly
|> > way. Not by Intel, though.
|>
|> Regardless, it's my opinion that somewhere along the line it's a pain in
|> the ass for either the hardware, the compiler, the OS, or the application
|> programmer. There's a much simpler and more straight-forward solution:
|> simply extend the address space. Sadly, back in the DOS days, the software
|> people didn't quite catch on...It took Microsoft 10 years to develop a
|> 32 bit consumer OS (1985: 386 introed, 1995: Windows 95). 16-bit code is
|> still somewhere hiding in Windows ME.
Yes, but don't assume that everyone needs make that much of a mess of
it. The point about the 'partially extended' solution is that it gives
a way for many of the bleeding users to access more than 4 GB without
impacting the others. But it is, at best, a temporary expedient.
|> Software has long been the downfall
|> of clever hardware engineers.
And vice versa :-(
|> The question is, Will IA-64 suffer like many
|> other ill-fated architectures? It's new and innovative, but perhaps too
|> new, too innovative?
No - definitely not. If it fails, it will fail because it is an old
mistake being repeated. I am not joking when I say that too much of
modern computer design is reinventing the wheel, but with a different
number of sides each time ....
If the IA-64 line succeeds, it will either be in spite of its design
(i.e. due to marketing etc.) or because of innovative work by the
compiler people. I have my doubts that the latter are good enough!
Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Windows in space......
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Apr 2001 10:16:59 -0500
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:31:53 -0400, Patrick McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Probably a duplicate post, but if not, makes for a funny....kinda.....read.
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,42912,00.html
>
>
This is worth a short quote, don't you think?:
2:00 a.m. Apr. 7, 2001 PDT
.....
The space station, which has been operational for less than five
months, experiences almost daily computer glitches, according to
the commander's log recently published on the Web.
Most of the problems appear to be related to Microsoft's Windows NT,
while Russian-made software seems to be more reliable.
.....
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:36:10 -0400
On 8 Apr 2001, Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Do you understand way there
>>>> cannot be a new GPL'd gif-writing program?
>>> Because of a Unisys patent.
>>>> Or DVD-decoding program?
>>> Because of some stupid US-only law. $DEITY forbid other WIPO countries
>>> to also implement article 11 of the WIPO 1996 treaty.
>> So you do understand the specifics - but you didn't answer the general
>> question: if you still maintain that all necessary combinations can be
>> GPLed as a whole is it because you think other restrictions are not
>> significant or that all users can do without all code where other
>> restrictions
>> apply?
> For examples like this, read section 7 of the GPL. It is there for a
> reason.
> For other examples I'd say that it is entirely possible that you can
> freely redistribute it under Non-GPL conditions but not under GPL ones,
> but then I state that those licenses are also encumbered in its
> redistribution rules. Why only blame the GPL?
<<Look carefully at the reality, though, and it's 90% the GPL's fault
these combinations cannot be distributed. The GPL doesn't allow
*different* restrictions (e.g., rGPL + rOL !> rGPL). The restrictions
on many licences out there are in fact LESS bothersome than the
restrictions on the GPL, but because they are different, the sum total
of restrictions is greater than those on the GPL alone and therefore
the result cannot be distributed. This despite the fact that those
licences have no problem playing with any other open source licence.>>
>>> Case in point: if you cannot change the distribution restrictions to
>>> GPL, then the license is just as restrictive as the GPL. So it is not
>>> only the GPL who is to blame for your being unable to distribute the
>>> combination.
>> No, for the hundredth time, the other restrictions did not, and would
>> not under any circumstance prevent distribution. Only the GPL did.
> Your logic is flawed here. If one part of the system is "most
> restrictive" (i.e. GPL), then why couldn't you distribute the whole
> system as GPL? There really are only two possibilities here:
> 1. It was legally possible but *you* *chose* not to distribute the whole
> under the greatest common denominator (i.e. the GPL) so *you*, not the
> GPL, is the restrictive force here.
<<This is clearly not what Les has claimed.>>
> 2. It was legally impossible because you could not apply the GPL to the
> other part(s). This means that like the GPL, the other parts were
> licensed under equally restrictive conditions (i.e.: you can only
> redistribute this software under license A, B or C).
<<Sorry, but you're not getting it. BSDLed software in Linux is *STILL
NOT* GPLed. The work as a whole is GPLed, but the licence on the
individual source modules used in Linux aren't change. The third
reality -- not possibility, but reality -- is that rGPL + rOL > rGPL,
which means that the clause preventing "extra" restrictions is invoked.
The restrictions on the parts that Les has been talking about are
likely less restrictive than the GPL -- I don't know, because I haven't
seen those restrictions or the parts in question. One need not look far
to see how it could have been done better: look at the LGPL or the MPL
for good examples. Other ways would have included specifications of
"acceptable classes" of restrictions -- but that may run into a
slightly larger problem.>>
>>> This comes down to the circular argument. You keep hammering on the
>>> distribution. If someone would sell me his product for big bucks under
>>> the BSDL and I couldn't get it from anywhere else, this would still be
>>> very legal and the software would be just as free. The license talks
>>> about how I can *redistribute* the stuff, not about how I can get it.
>> No, the license talks about the circumstances where you are prohibited
>> from redistributing, and covers most of the possibilities.
> Bzzt, wrong, thanks for playing. The distribution is prohibited *by
> default* via copyright law. The license *allows* distribution and sets
> the conditions for such allowance.
<<Correct. And the GPL allows distribution with greater restrictions
than many other open source licences -- this is NOT freedom.>>
>>> See above.
>> Yes, only the GPL makes this sharing impossible.
> See above ;-)
<<Yes, see above. You've been refuted soundly on this matter.>>
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:41:11 -0400
On 8 Apr 2001, Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
> Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 4 Apr 2001 17:14:07 GMT, Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Les wasn't the original author, so he had no say in how the code could be
>> redistributed *as a matter of copyright law*. The licenses themselves have
>> nothing to say about it.
> He can have a thing to say about it if the license permits this. The
> BSDL does, so it can be and is used in GPLed projects. If the other
> licenses do not permit this, then they too have restrictive distribution
> conditions. Don't blame only the GPL if you use incompatible licenses.
<<Actually, the BSDL doesn't say anything about relicensing or
interoperability with other licences. Only the GPL does.>>
>>> The difference is that the GPL "embrace & extend" guarantees *free use*
>>> of the software.
>> For suitably small values of "free".
> Small enough to pass all conditions of the DFSG.
<<Your point?>>
>> Fine. Don't buy Windows 2000.
> I won't.
>
>> In the meantime, just how does M$ using the known working, debugged
>> IP stack from BSD hurt you?
> Their using it doesn't hurt me, their closing it up *does*
> (hypothetically speaking, of course. I don't use W2K and I don't think I
> will in the forseeable future).
<<Do me a favour, and seriously explain how MS's use of BSDLed code
closes up the BSDLed code. It should at least be good for a laugh --
because it's as nonsensical now as it was the first time some GPL
supporter claimed the same sort of thing. MS can't restrict your use of
BSDLed code -- Wind River might be able to with future versions, but
not MS.>>
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 10:42:57 -0500
Well Aaron, the obvious has become VERY obvious. You my friend, are a
Windows 98 only user. There is no camouflage, there is no security through
obfuscation, there is no header string being changed, and there is certainly
no truth to your shoddy claim.
You see Aaron, if YOU could change the X-Mailer: as we have requested, you
would have changed the string. Your ego is too big not to do so. If YOU
could change that string you would have changed it a million times by now.
Your ego is too big not to do so.
It must be pretty embarrassing for you to have all the REAL Unix users in
this group freely changing their X-Mailer strings at will, yet poor little
Aaron cannot.
The fat lady is singing, LOUDLY!
(Aaron Kulkis - convicted full-time Windows 98 user)
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Apr 2001 10:40:58 -0500
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:34:42 GMT, WGAF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "667 Neighbor of the Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > 41% is not rules. Anyway, since Linux is is Unix, let us combine the
>> > > Unix and Linux scores. Now it reads:
>> >
>> > Except for the fact that Unix is not Linux and one shell not combine
>them
>> > into one. Unless one knows nothing about either of the OSes....
>>
>> while legally, linux is not allowed to call itself unix (which is a
>> trademark of the open group), in practice, linux is a unix.
>>
>> in the language of the drug-war, unix is a gateway drug to linux and
>> vice-versa.
>>
>> the first big misunderstand is that linux is unix; the second big
>> misunderstanding is that linux is not unix.
>
>As I said, "Unless one knows nothing about either of the OSes...."
>
By your own definition, you must know very little about Windows since
you lump Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 2nd edition, Windows ME,
Windows NT, Windows 2K Pro, Windows NT Server, Windows 2K Server, etc.
all in the same bracket: Windows.
If all the above equals Windows, then surely we can lump linux and
unix together.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Apr 2001 10:47:39 -0500
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:48:24 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 667 Neighbor of the Beast
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:09:56 -0700
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> > Anonymous wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > server market share
>>> > >
>>> > > windows 41%
>>> > > linux 27%
>>> > > netware 17%
>>> > > unix 14%
>>> > > other 2%
>>> > >
>>> > > windows rules on servers too?!?
>>> > > who woulda thunk it...
>>
>>41% is not rules.
>
>It is a plurality. While not a majority, it is in fact the
>dominant platform. (This doesn't mean that it is the best
>platform, of course!)
>
>>Anyway, since Linux is is Unix, let us combine the
>>Unix and Linux scores.
>
>Be careful here. Unix is a conglomerate itself of many operating
>systems: AIX, HP/UX, Tru64 Unix, Solaris, and even QNX and Mac OSX,
>if I'm not mistaken. Linux is not Unix as far as the Open Group
>is concerned (yes, that's a nitpick), although it's so close I for one
>would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
>
Well Windows is a conglomerate of Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 2nd
edition, Windows ME, Windows CE, Windows NT, Windows NT server, Windows
2K Pro, Windows 2K Server and you let that all get lumped in a "Windows"?
------------------------------
From: Rob Robertson <[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: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:02:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
silverback wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 09:16:29 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> >What part of Islamic theology specifies the vertical integration of
> >industry within the country.
>
> fascism is corporate rule dummy. Maybe you should educate yerself and
> find out how many of those Iranian corporations are controlled by the
> religious allyotahs.
So if the Ayatollahs who constitute the ruling *state* power control
those Iranian corporations, how does that support your "fascism is
corporate rule" thesis, Glen?
_
Rob Robertson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
