Linux-Advocacy Digest #181, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 07:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ian Davey)
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ian Davey)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("David
Brown")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars. ("billh")
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars. ("billh")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:42:45 +0200
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Don't you just love the statement "this viral aspect". Like MS just wants
to
> >Grab as much as they can for FREE have all the benefits and NOT allow
anyone
> >else access to their code. If GPL has so many *significant* drawbacks
(they
> >go on to equate OSS with the recent .com bubble) why in the hell is MS
even
> >worrying about it.
>
> Yes, and how many *closed*-source vendors have gone under, not for lack
> of technical merit or business sense, but for the misfortune of being in
> Microsoft's way?
I don't know. How many is that exactly?
<snip>
>[QUOTE]--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >----------------------------------
>
> [snip]
>
> >Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU
General
> >Public License or GPL. The GPL mandates that any software that
incorporates
> >source code already licensed under the GPL will itself become subject to
the
> >GPL. When the resulting software product is distributed, its creator must
> >make the entire source code base freely available to everyone, at no
> >additional charge. This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the
> >intellectual property of any organization making use of it.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>[/QUOTE]-------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >-----------------------------------
>
> So let me see if I have this straight. Mundie claims that all your
> base are belong to Richard Stallman simply because somebody, somewhere,
> in your vast corporate empire has installed DJGPP on his Win98 box?
No he is not. He is (correctly) claiming, that if you incorporate a GPL'ed
component in your software product, then ALL of your code for that product
must be GPL'ed as well, no matter how insignificant the original GPL'ed
component was.
Mikkel
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:01:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, actually the opposite.
>
>A female homosexual might be raped, and reproduce anyways.
There you go again, spinning off into that nasty little world you live in. I
just hope you'll come out and say this is something completely
unreasonable. I'm sure she'd be sensible enough to take a morning after pill.
A female homosexual can easily reproduce through sperm donation, and quite a
few do.
>Therefore, male homosexuality interferes MORE with reproduction than female
> homosexuality.
A male homosexual can consentually reproduce by donating sperm to a female,
something that doesn't involve any form of rape.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: 4 May 2001 19:13:20 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>It is easy for someone knowledgable to pretend to be ignorant.
No, it's damn hard. You can pretend not know the things you know you know,
but it's almost impossible to pretent not to know the things you don't know
you know --- which for a truely knowledgable person, as you should know,
is known to be most of the knowledge...
Bernie
P.S.: And the award for most occurrences of the string "know" in a usenet
posting goes to...
P.P.S.: Despite the form of this posting, I am serious.
--
If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my
friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country
E.M. Forster
English novelist
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: 4 May 2001 19:24:39 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>In the DAW world the WDM drivers have reduced the Sound Card latency
>>>to 2ms or less which allows real time input monitoring including
>>>effects etc.
>>What's the latency of an mmap()ped sound buffer, really? A lot less than
>>2ms, that much is sure...
>What the hell does all that stuff mean?
[ Note: I have a nagging suspicion that you were writing that in a mocking
tone of voice. Oh well, on the off chance that you weren't: ]
Sound latency is the time your sound sample spends in the sound driver
between the moment the app submits it and the moment it gets played.
Generally, large buffers in the drivers (or on the actual hardware) are
good --- playing back an MP3, for example, it's nice to have half a second
or so buffered and ready to go for those times when your CPU is needed
for heavy real work, and the MP3 decoder might not get cycles quite as
easily as normally.
On the other hand, pulling the trigger in Quake, and hearing the "Swoosh"
of the rocket launcher half a second later is not really appropriate. So
for anything interactive, you want the sound latency to be low. Of course,
that means that you have to give the sound driver new data all the time;
The shorter the latency, the harder for the app (and OS) to guarantee that
data won't run out at any point. Also, when taken to extremes, the overhead
of calling the driver hundreds if not thousands of times a second can become
significant.
Linux' sound drivers can be mmap-ed. This means that the actual buffer from
which the sound card is playing back appears as memory in the app's address
space. This allows the app to use fairly large buffers, and still be able
to insert that "swoosh" in a place where it will get played back right away.
It's very hard to talk about quantitative values for the latency in that
case.
I would have expected Window's sound system to provide similar functionality;
However, it appears as if there are at least 2, probably 3 different APIs
aimed at low-latency sound reproduction, and none of them works satisfactorily
across a wide range of hardware. Oh well :)
Bernie
--
I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked
with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a
fad that won't last out the year
The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:32:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> No, in other words it's just like hetrosexuality.
>
>No, it is not.
>
>Heterosexuality promotes the propagation of the DNA...therefore, (since
>our bodies are nothing more than carriers for our DNA to propagate into
>the next generation), heterosexual attraction is USEFUL for the DNA.
>
>Conversersely, homosexual attraction does NOTHING for the propagation
>of the DNA...in fact, it actually INTERFERES with the DNA's propagation
>into the next generation.
False, homosexuals are still perfectly capable of propagating their DNA should
they wish to. They always have been.
>And we don't even need to go into the disease vectors that hinder the
>DNA's ability to propagate even more by SIGNIFICANTLY hinger the DNA's
>chances of reproducing due to an early trip to the grave yard.
Those same disease vectors effect hetrosexuals as well. And have the same root
cause, the male sex drive.
>> You can't even start using
>> the old "passing on the genes" argument, as there is no biological reason why
>> homosexuals can't have children and many do. Sex is both a biological act,
>> enabling reproduction, and something connected to pleasure and intimacy. The
>> two don't have to be connected, in fact you'll find they're not in an
>
>Actually, you're wrong. The pleasure of sex is there PRECISELY so that
>there will be the appropriate urges to perform the necessary biological
>processes needed to reproduce.
No I'm not, I said "the two *don't have* to be connected", not that they're
not. I don't know what time period you live in, but these days people use
things like contraception specifically to avoid this biological propagation.
In fact in Italy for instance the population is dropping because a lot of
hetrosexuals don't want children at all.
>You know...like 25,000 years ago, when people didn't have the slightest
>freaking CLUE about what created babies.
Bollocks, even very primitive cultures have the intelligence to realise
that, contraception has existed for a very long time.
>Any man from that time, with exclusively homosexual urges...is simply
>a dead end on the genetic tree. A man with no genetic heirs, is,
>biologically, GENETICALLY, a failure.
Lot's of people choose not to have children. How many do you have for
instance? If a homosexual man wants children, especially in this day and age,
it is perfectly possible.
>Anything gene(s) which promote(s) genetic failure is a birth defect.
In your theory of ever-increasing population explosion perhaps. Even if your
view was correct, all that's needed is for the DNA of each family to be passed
on. An individuals DNA isn't that important in the overall scheme of things,
it's just a mixture of that what has come before, so the DNA an individual
carries will be propogated by the species.
>> increasing number of hetrosexual couples. Or are you telling me you never use
>> contraception? Homosexuality is no more a birth defect than blue eyes or
>> blonde hair is. To say so only exposes your prejudice, whether you like to
>> admit it or not.
>>
>> It is not in the interests of the human species for the population to explode
>> out of control.
>
>DNA doesnt' give a fuck about that.
DNA doesn't give a fuck about individuals either. If overpopulation made it's
propagation all the more difficult due to death though starvation then it
certainly would care. Our genetic disposition towards having few children has
been quite successful in propogating the species.
>> If everyone followed your biological rules, we'd all end up
>> living in bedsits with at least twelve children. You ever seen Monty Python's
>> Meaning of Life?*
>
>Not having offspring serves the interests of a man's DNA how, exactly?
A man's DNA is shared thoughout the species, it doesn't require specific
individuals to breed for propagation to continue. DNA just doesn't work
like that. If it did you should be in favour of completely banning cars, as
road deaths amongst children are hardly good for the propagation of DNA are
they?
Having too many offspring can make successful propogation of DNA more
difficult, though starvation, disease and premature death. Human's have
genetically evolved to have few children but raise them with a lot of care,
whereas some species have thousands of children and accept that lot's are
going to die. I don't believe that human's could successly transition
themselves into the latter category.
>> ian.
>> * Why do I get the disturbing feeling that Aaron would have sold his kids for
>> medical experiments long before then?
>
>Spot the slanderous character assassination.
Sorry, I was thinking that someone who enjoyed Monty Python would understand
ironic humour. Obviously not. Instead it goes over your head and becomes
slander. I'd avoid satirical works if I were you.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 06:45:07 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> Rick wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >JS PL wrote:
> >>
> >> T. Max Devlin wrote in message
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 10:50:53 -0400;
> >> >>Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >>>Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>>> > Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
> >> 10:11:32 -0400;
> >> >>>> > >Since 1993, however, Compaq has not consistently loaded any
> >> >>>> > >alternatives to Windows on personal computers it markets to
> >> consumers.
> >> >>>> Our
> >> >>>> > >assessment of consumer preference is that our customers want
> Windows
> >> >>to
> >> >>>> be
> >> >>>> > >preinstalled on their computers.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > I don't think you understand how damning such testimony is to
> >> >>>> > Microsoft's case, JS PL.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I don't understand, that's for sure. Sure seems like this Compaq
> >> >>>> testimony backs up what us MS-shills are saying: People aren't
> >> >>>> being "forced" to accept Windows; companies like Compaq
> >> >>>> are giving them what they want.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Then how come, if I call up Compaq, and ask for a desktop machine
> >> >>>with Linux pre-installed, the REFUSE to sell it to me, and when
> >> >>>it comes to servers, fi I ask for Linux pre-installed, they will
> >> >>>NOT give me a rebate on the Mafia$oft licenses which I am not
> >> >>>going to use.
> >> >>
> >> >>Because no one has the inherint "right" to buy whatever they want.
> >> >
> >> >Yes we do. We live in a free country; we have the right to buy whatever
> >> >we want.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry kook. Your wrong. You have the right to buy whatever someone
> would
> >> like to sell. That's all. You don't have the right to buy whatever you
> want,
> >> that would be the *opposite* of a free country.
> >>
> >> >There is no reason (save illegal actions known as
> >> >'monopolization') that a producer would not then attempt to profit by
> >> >selling us whatever we want.
> >> >
> >> >>It's the same reason
> >> >>you can't walk into McDonalds and demand a pizza.
> >> >
> >> >You're saying McDonalds doesn't want to sell pizza for some reason other
> >> >than that they can't make enough money from it to show a profit?
> >>
> >> No. Their reasons for not selling pizza do not matter. The fact remains
> that
> >> you have no right whatsoever to go into McDonalds and buy wahtever you
> want,
> >> including demanding a pizza.
> >>
> >> > I don't know of any honest businessman who would turn down honest
> profit
> >> >on principle.
> >>
> >> Not relevant.
> >
> >The problem is the vendors are not being allowed to sell whatever they
> >want. Some have wanted to sell other OS's but were prevented by
> >per-processor or per-system licensing. Now there is the the "bounty" for
> >vendors selling bare systems.
>
> That line of shit was debunked ages ago, IN COURT! No vendor has ever been
> prevented from selling other OS's installed. Even the DOJ's witnesses affirm
> that fact.
>
Gee, I guess thats why per-processor licensing was "eliminated" byt the
consent decree.
> At the hieght of per processor licence aggreements only about half of the
> OEM's opted for that type of licence, of that half, about 25 OEM's still
> shipped other os's on the same proccessor with full agreement of Microsoft.
> MS has always strived to provided customers with exactly what they want.
> It's 99% of the reason everyone chooses their products.
Those "50-25% of the vendors" shipped most of the systems - enough to
get Microsoft dragged into FTC/DOJ proceedings.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:19:08 +0200
Stephen Edwards wrote in message ...
>"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>Could you please expand on this? Exactly what is it that NT
>cannot do from the VDM that it can do from the GUI? If the
>VDM doesn't suit you, then what about CygWin32?
>
CygWin is an interesting system - in order to make NT command line work like
a real shell, you need to use ported utilites from Unix. One great example
is "ln" - NTFS has had support for hard links for years, yet the only way to
use them is either to pay for expensive third-party systems, or download a
free port of a standard unix utility.
>Also, as far as standard APIs go, what is Win32 exactly, if
>it is not a standard API? From what I can tell, Microsoft
>software is THE standard out there these days. Sometimes I
>think that old-school UNIX users tend to live in the past,
>thinking that POSIX has more presence than it really does.
>
>Microsoft's standards are proprietary, but they are standards
>nonetheless. I simply don't understand why some people have
>a "POSIX-compliance or die" attitude. I can't even count on
>two hands anymore the amount of software that has been ported
>back and forth between POSIX and Win32, so why does it even
>matter much, if at all if an OS is POSIX.1-.3 compliant?
>--
There is simply no such thing as a "proprietry standard". As long as MS
keeps its API to itself, it is not a standard. You can well argue that the
MS API is very commonly used, and may be more useful than POSIX, but it is
still not a standard.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 06:53:38 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> T. Max Devlin wrote in message
>
> >>A fine server OS (well, bunch of OSes), but it simply
> >>doesn't even begin to cut it on the desktop.
>
> Agreed. After spending about four days being amused by Mandrake 8, it STILL
> doesn't even begin to cut it on the desktop.
Why is that? Wjat is it missing?
> I would almost venture to say
> that just about ALL of the included apps that I use crash regularly on
> Linux.
Would you please name them. And if the crash regularly you could always
notify the app maintainers, so they can fix the problems.
> The newsreaders especially suck.
Which newsreaders and how do they suck?
> Half the no-name browsers are
> somehow or for some stupid reason configured by default to display web text
> at about 2 pixels in height, this is especially a pain in the ass because I
> have to go in and configure larger font display for every damn user.
Which browsers are these? Opera doesnt. Konquorer doesnt. Netscape
doesnt.
>
> File downloads regularly "stall" for minutes on end.
> Did I say regularly? I meant ALWAYS!
Are these modem DLs, ethernet DLs, what. Is your system configured
properly? IS your ISP's? My ISP wasnt. I switched to a different modem
bank and havent had any trouble.
> And I think it ruined my favorite monitor but have no proof, but now
> the monitor flickers into half brightness all the time, since the install.
>
> It makes a descent platform for running Apache though.
>
> >
> >The distinction is a myth created by Microsoft to explain why their
> >products sucked so much.
>
> No Max, the distinction is proven by personal experience.
>
> "Its only a desktop; if you need
> >[performance|reliability|stability|capabilities|scalability|compatibility|i
> nteroperability]
> >then get a server!"
>
> If you want all of the above including well developed aplications just get
> WINNT.
>
> >>> Linux is not second rate.
> >>
> >>It's just like Unix.
> >
> >Thus, it is a powerful, professional-level OS, in comparison to Windows,
> >which is just monopoly crapware.
>
> Too bad you wouldn't know, since the only OS your smart enough to run is
> Windows95. Real professional there Max. Your too fucking poor to ugrade from
> Windows 95 to Linux. Yeah - your a real fricking genius.
> In your situation I'd probably be pissed and dimented too.
Mind reading again?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 06:56:30 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > > I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg of the mass
> > > > > of symptoms which identify you as a complet and utter moron.
> > > >
> > > > Everything I know I learned from Victor Borge!
> > >
> > > Too bad you missed 99% of what Borge taught.
> >
> > That's true, I was never again good with a piano.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> Tell you what, Daniel...
>
> How about I get a job at Microsoft, and then come visit you,
> and blow your fucking head off.
>
> Hey, it's illegal as all hell, but as long as it's an action
> done by someone from Microsoft, it's ok, .... RIGHT!
>
> --
ISnt that just a little extreme?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:58:20 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > So, what you're saying is that every supply unit in the army is in
> > > violation of AR 710-2.
> >
> > Name one.
>
> Every one which uses Roman numerals....which, in my experience,
> has been 100%
Never heard of a supply sergeant named "Every one"?
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:59:09 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> Then why did they refer to it as such?
LOL!!! "They" didn't.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
