Linux-Advocacy Digest #616, Volume #34 Sat, 19 May 01 01:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Snaggler)
Eric S. Raymond: Microsoft's "Shared Source" plan -- such a deal! (Dave Martel)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Snaggler)
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! (Michael Vester)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Snaggler)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Snaggler)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Snaggler)
Re: Dell Meets Estimates (Shun Yan Cheung)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Sat, 19 May 2001 04:16:10 GMT
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:CFhN6.6208$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:vJgN6.8258$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:KqbN6.28551$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> > > > Well genius, why do you think there's not much app development going
> on
> > > > for Commodre 64/128, Apple II, Tandy Color Computer, Atari ST, etc?
> > >
> > > Well, The first 5 machines listed there are 8-bit
> > > computers- first generation PCs, and they really
> > > really really suck hard compared to even the
> > > original IBM PC.
> >
> > I would rather have C64 then a IBM PC (which I have both currently).
A
> > simple test was to program a print loop in BASIC and the C64 was 3/4 the
> > speed of the PC, even thought the CPU was less then 1/4 clock speed.
>
> I don't quite get it. The C64 was slower; why prefer it?
>
Price and everyone one I knew had a C64.
> Sure, maybe it had a batter BASIC implementation,
> but not enough better to overcome its other problems,
> like the low clock speeds.
>
Whats interesting is MS did both BASICs.
> Few programs of significance were written
> in the built-in interpreted BASIC back then,
> you know. It was way, way too slow. There
> *were* compilers you could use that were
> at least better than interpreted basic. There
> where bytecode systems. And there
> was assembly.
>
> Mostly there was assembly, though.
The most common BASIC compiler used P-code (smaller and slower) and M-code
(larger and alot faster), any hand coded Assembly code would fly past a
BASIC compiled program.
>
> > C64/128 still has programs being created, even the Atari 2600 has new
> games
> > or demos being produced.
>
> Yes, I know. Nostalgia is fun, but that doesn't
> mean other technologies aren't better.
>
True, but price was alot better than a PC. I am currently using a P2 400,
if I didn't know that were betters systems, I would still be using the C128
or C64.
> > > Really. The IBM PC won because it wasn't
> > > just better than its competitors at the time,
> > > it was a *lot* better.
> >
> > C64 had the home market til the 90s, but Business market was ruled by
> PCs.
>
> Sorta kinda.
>
> The C64 was cheap to produce, and Commodore
> took advantage of that. But it didn't dominate
> the home market the way PCs dominated
> the business market. The Commodore 64
> was slowly squeezed out as prices came
> down on other computers.
>
Nobody could dominate like the PCs did in the business market place, simply
because they weren't IBM but the C64 was the closest for Home market. Over
10 million C64s and 128s and a few dozon C65s prototypes over the years.
> Commodore knew that the C64 technology
> had no future. That is why they invested
> in the Amiga, which kept them going
> until the early ninties.
>
Really, what about the C65? The real problem was Commodore knew the C64
family of computers weren't going to go on forever. The Amiga gave them a
way out and a way to shaft Atari.
> But Commodores initially strong position
> in the home market was eroding from '86 on,
> at the least.
>
It still sold over 1/2 million computers up to 88 or 89, then it tanked.
85 was the strongest year with over 1.4 million units sold.
> > > It failed because it was too little, too late-
> > > and even more because Atari showed
> > > little commitment to it. Besides, it was
> > > a rather me-too-ish sort of computer. Why
> > > bother with it in the face of the Macintosh,
> > > the PC AT or the Amiga?
> > >
> > Atari and Commodore but had REALLY bad management teams, I still
remember
> a
> > picture from INFO magazine showing Atari management as the 3 Stooges.
The
> > problem was Commodore's was any better.
>
> (I assume you mean "wasn't any better"..)
>
Sorry, your correct, thats what I get for talking to someone on the phone
at the same time....
> Sure it was. Commodore got behind its Amiga
> product and managed to get some users and
> some developers. It wasn't a stunning success,
> but comparing it to the Atari story makes
> it look like one.
>
Commodore was hoping for another C64 for the price was too high on the
Amiga.
> [snip]
> > > On those old 8-bit machines, you pretty much
> > > had to develop anything significant in assembly;
> > > high-level languages would produce code that
> > > was just too big or just too slow (usually both).
> >
> > Slow compared to modern machines but fast enough for the time and place.
>
> Not in the opinions of the people on the
> spot; commercial software was mostly
> written in assembly, to make it faster and
> smaller.
>
Sorry I meant Assembly was fast enough for the time and place. Only a very
few EARLY games were written in Basic, Standing Stones by EA is the only
one that comes to mind.
> There were exceptions, of course.
> > > And assembly on a 6502 or a Z80 is not
> > > exactly a fun thing. 8 bit registers really,
> > > really bite. You pretty much always need
> > > bigger numbers than that, so you wind up
> > > having to play with carry bits and string
> > > arithmeitc operations together and...
> >
> > A good compiler would do wonders when programming in assembly on the
C64.
>
> Good compilers were virtually unknown then.
I didn't mean for the code, but for the programmer. I have tried just
about EVER compiler for the C64. I liked Buddy 64 for Assembly with
Metabasic filling in the holes.
> There was no way one could run on the
> C64 itself (or any other 8 bit); instead you
> could get a minicomputer and then write your
> own cross-compiler.
>
If you wanted to program some that changed the hardware defaults, I would
tend to agree. If you left the memory map alone, it wasn't hard to
program on the C64. I think my biggest program was 30K or so, in Assembly,
though the program sucked. Most of my programs were about 10K and filled a
1541 disk with source code. Also having JiffyDos helped alot when I
programmed, one of the best disk speed ups there was...
> But generating good, fast, small code for
> the 6502 is a very hard problem, even
> with an early-eighties mini to play with. It
> was not a real friendly instruction set for
> compilers, either, as it happens.
>
I never had problems creating good fast, and small code though it may take
me a couple of rewrites to get it small. I remember a small section of
code, I wrote, it was over 2K long, in the end it was 62 bytes long and
did the same thing.
> A good assembler would help, though.
> Still, even the best assembler can only go
> so far.
>
> And there were even grosser hacks. Ever
> heard of "Sweet-16"?
>
I don't remember it off hand, one of the best was FLI, it interlaced 2
pictures to make it appear to have 192 colors. You had to have code for a
PAL or NTSC, since the timing was different on them.
> > If I had to do floats, I would use built in BASIC from assembly.
>
> Yeah. Some of those systems didn't have what we'd
> call an API. You could call into bits of the builtin
> BASIC from assembly though, sometimes.
>
> It got better as time went on, though.
>
Every thing tends to better as time goes on....
> > 8 bit registers were almost never used in the 6502, it was
> > mainly memory based, with 16 bits.
>
> Erm. Mainly?
I almost never used the accumulator, unless it was to add or subtract
something. I was comparing it to the 8085, with was register based, which
you had to everything in the registers.
> It sure pounded memory hard, but
> the accumulator was just everywhere. And
> there weren't any 16-bit arithemetic
> ops. You had a way to dereference a 16 bit
> address that was in main memory; it had
> to be in the low 256 bytes though.
>
True there weren't 16 aritemetic, but MOS wanted a simple and fast 8 bit
CPU, which if they had added that stuff, it would have made it slower.
Just compare the Z80 and 6502, the Z80 had to run 2X clock speed just to
match the 6502.
BTW I may be alittle rusty on programming on the C64 but I do know quite
abit about the C64/C128, since I used one up until 1995 and was Editor of my
local Club newletter for 2 years.
> > > ... well, better you should use an abacus.
> > >
> > Haven't used one in about 2 weeks. ;) I use it more that a
calculators
> > sometimes.
>
> :D
>
A slide rule, is what I haven't used in a decade....
------------------------------
From: Snaggler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 04:21:46 GMT
On 18 May 2001 20:23:09 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Jon Johansan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 16 May 2001 08:18:10
>> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Jan Johanson wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> > 5 9s is conservative?
>> >> >
>> >> > Show me any proof of such a rediculous claim. Show me ANY unix vendor
>> >> > promising 6 9s of uptime. ANY OS/ANY hardware. Show me.
>> >>
>> >> Here's a little one from Novell:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.techshows.com/Calgary/novell_technologies_seminar.htm
>> >
>> >I meant "ANY UNIX/ANY hardware" but... so, it takes Novell to be the 6 9s
>> >king and requires a cluster.
>> >A Windows cluster can do this as well (and, hell, even a unix cluster).
>I'm
>> >talking single machines.
>>
>> NOBODY in the Windows world claims five nines for a single machine. Not
>> without plenty of wiggle-room; that would be insanity.
>
>Stratus sells 5 9's, HP sells 5 9's - on W2K.
>
Neither HP nor Stratus will cough up money for downtime without a
legal battle when and if the guarantee fails. The promise is only as
good as the combined elements of hardware, software and personnel to
support it. The lawyers do have plenty of wiggle-room built into these
contracts. Better make sure your backups are current with Microsoft
products.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Eric S. Raymond: Microsoft's "Shared Source" plan -- such a deal!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 22:10:58 -0600
Heh. Nobody can flame 'em like Raymond:
Eric S. Raymond: Microsoft's "Shared Source" plan -- such a deal!
<http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-05-18-003-20-OP-MS>
<...>
"1.First, we'll let you pay us for the privilege of seeing the source
code to our software, bugs and all."
"2.Then, we'll use your work to raise the price of our next release.
including anything you contributed. You won't get paid for your
creative work, and you'll have no rights in it. If we're feeling nice,
maybe we'll give you a discount on the next release. Then again, maybe
not."
"3.Oh, and by the way...if you try to use any of what you learned from
helping us fix our bugs for your own purposes, we'll sue your ass off
and smother you in lawyers."
<...>
"We here at Microsoft call this "protecting intellectual property
rights in order to create a sustainable business model". Um, that
would be our intellectual property and our business model. You surely
weren't thinking we cared about your business or your rights, were
you?"
<...>
------------------------------
From: Snaggler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 04:25:15 GMT
On 18 May 2001 20:24:12 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9duli0$rlp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
>> >> >
>> >> > If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
>> >>
>> >> If your time is worth nothing, install Linux.
>> >>
>> >> If both your time and money are worth nothing, then install Microsoft.
>> >
>> > I am convinced there is almost no way you attend oxford - unless your
>> > parents paid off admissions...
>>
>> Hahahaha! LOL!
>>
>> You checked the root of my email address then!
>>
>> Well, I've got news for you buddy, my parents didn't pay off admissions
>> (that kind of stuff doesn't happen any more) and besides if they did, I
>> would have failed my first exams with flying colours and have been kicked
>> out. Oh, BTW I passed, so I'm good enough to stay here.
>>
>> If you still don't believe me, go to the following URL:
>>
>> http://users.ox.ac.uk
>>
>> And look under my name under private pages. If you're lazy, here's a
>> short cut:
>>
>> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~scat1148/
>>
>> -Ed
>
>he said "scat" hehehe
>
Yeah, that usually makes airheads giggle.
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:53:08 -0700
Paolo Ciambotti wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Michael Vester"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It was this quote that clued me in
> >
> > "I lugged the entire system to CompUSA where I bought it and they got it
> > back for me thank goodness without any data loss."
> >
> > That is definitely a "FlatFishism." They must think she/he/it is a real
> > nut case after marking Linux boxes with yellow tape last year to see how
> > fast the stock moved. I like the name Flatfish. Hope she/he/it keeps
> > it. Hear that Flatfish, you have a fan.
>
> A person's writing style is as unique as their fingerprint. In the
> states, its commonly accepted in the courts that ten similarities between
> two fingerprints constitutes a match. Ten points of identification, it's
> called. Those points can be arches, loops, whorls, breaks, etc.
>
> The same is true of writing, whether hand-lettered or typed. For
> instance, if you search Google for previous post of mine where I closed by
> signing my name, you'll see that I typed it "Paolo". And you typed yours
> "Michael". Most people do that. Only rarely will a person *NOT*
> capitalize their name when adding a signatory line. Oddly enough, you even
> misspelled "flatfish" as "Flatfish" repeatedly, with a leading upshifted
> letter, something the real flatfish / steve / heather / amy / keys88 *HAS*
> *NEVER* *DONE*. And that's one of the points of identification in his/her
> posts.
>
> I do so hate to give away trade secrets, but that last post had over two
> dozen unique points of identification, so I don't expect this will
> seriously jeapordize my ability to spot the scoundrel in the future.
> Leopards do not change their spots and all that.
I will rely on your expertise to keep us up todate with the latest
incarnation of Flatfish. I capitalize Flatfish's name because it is a
proper noun. If Flatfish was a fish, I would not capitalize. But I give
the same respect to the name Flatfish as I would give to any other name.
This posting was distinctly the work of Flatfish, even to my untrained
eyes.
I agree with you about being able to identify people through their writing
styles. It took my entire life just to come up with this style. I can't
change it. I am a computer programmer not a writer.
I make no secret that I am a fan of the cute and lovable Flatfish.
She/he/it brings a great deal of entertainment to this group. I like the
sound the word flatfish makes. Flatfish, if you are reading any of this,
please keep the name Flatfish. It is your best name ever.
--
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: Snaggler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 04:31:08 GMT
On 18 May 2001 20:20:06 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 15 May 2001 22:46:04
>> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> I use SuSE, hence, no security issues for me then
>> >
>> >Excuse me? Are you claiming SuSE has never had ANY security issues of any
>> >kind? Ever?
>>
>> Category error, reading comprehension problem, or purposeful stupidity?
>>
>> Votes please.
>
>Are you that devoid of reading ability? He claims that by using SuSE he has
>no security issues. I'm questioning that.
>
>Figure it out...
>
Yes, there have been. Not nearly the quantity Windows has wracked up,
but some, usually in distro unspecific attacks.
------------------------------
From: Snaggler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 04:34:47 GMT
On 18 May 2001 20:19:05 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > matt - you are late to the tread and missed the point.
>> > however, gee, you have to ask - got 24 heat producing devices with no
>> > cooling and when you come back it's warm? Gosh ! How could THAT happen!?
>> > That does not address the difference between how warm it is when there
>are 8
>> > processors versus 12 processors in a single box.
>> >
>> > then again, visit any colocation center, examine their cooling capacity.
>> > their cooling costs are in 5 digits a month - do you really think a few
>> > bucks more anyone would notice?
>>
>> Is that between the ever increasing black outs that are occuring in
>California?
>
>If the hippie anti-nuke paranoids in CA would have permitted the
>construction of nuclear power plants as was often proposed but never
>permitted they wouldn't have the problem they themselves created. Nothing to
>do with cooling...
>
Given the nuclear industry's track record, it's a good thing they
haven't. Even one disaster involving nuclear power is too much. Next
thing you'll say is "Win 2k is capable of running a nuclear power
plant better than Linux."
------------------------------
From: Snaggler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 04:46:13 GMT
On 18 May 2001 20:49:11 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
\
>
>It's been proven over and over and over and especially in this thread - the
>cost of the OS is nothing. The cost of the software is not significant to
>the overall cost of the entire project. The "free" open source project would
>not make any "fractions" appear.
>
>Besides - tell me what company is going to trust their multi(b|m)illion
>dollar operation to software created by someone as a hobby?
>
>
No, it hasn't. What's been assumed is that the cost of an OS only
involves the initial purchase, which isn't true. OS's have unique
properties which require more or less ongoing support. Plus, if a
certain OS is crash proned (NT or W2k for example), downtime must also
be factored in, plus the loss of productivity during the downtime. I
would imagine millions of man hours are lost due to Microsoft's
bugware per year. Now if an OS is reliable (Linux, Solaris, SCO,
etc.), and doesn't cause large downtimes because of its unique
properties, this makes the OS a better purchase economically.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shun Yan Cheung)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: 19 May 2001 01:00:33 -0400
In article <9e4lh4$ccu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's just a Sun press release.
At least it has benchmark numbers for TPC-H....
TPC-C is too simplistic and has been considered to
be outdated, SAP is a better measure. Go to
http://www.xware.net/html/zerti.htm
SUNW ranks top in many cases.
--
``Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly''
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
