Linux-Advocacy Digest #656, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 22:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (sandrews)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Security in Open Source Software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! (Terry Porter)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Woofbert)
Re: Advice needed. (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 21:10:54 -0500
In article <jnZN6.2473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:5jYN6.48460
>> As for my not being open to debate on the fact that the 68000 was far
>> superior to Intel's offerings of the time...I am also not open to
>> debate that the sky is blue. I just don't find it interesting to
>> debate that
> which
>> is not debatable.
>
> Actually, the sky isn't blue. The sky is colorless, but due to the
> light filtering properties of the atmosphere, when light is reflected
> off the earth then reflected back from the sky, it appears to have a
> blue color. Which is why the stars aren't blue when we look at them from
> earth.
Wrong again erik, light reflected back to earth from the atmosphere???
How you already said it was the atmosphere was clear. How does something
that is clear reflect light? Are you implying that the atmosphere is a
light trap?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 20:16:29 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Note that current HP 9000's are Itanium *READY*, and have chipsets
> >> >compatible with Itanium, but are not shipping Itaniums.
> >>
> >> Okay, same instruction set and same pin set also.
> >>
> >> But it's not the same chip then.
> >>
> >> Well, okay....
> >
> >I'm not sure if they have the same pinouts or not. Their chipsets might
> >reroute the pins depending on which processor is installed. But, even if
it
> >is the same pinout, it doesn't mean much. It's the internal architecture
of
> >the CPU that is the difference between EPIC and RISC, not its pinout.
> >
>
>
> Instruction sets are meaningless unless there's specific hardware
> inside the chip to tie the operations to specific hardware
> functions. We are not trying to say that one or the other
> is an emulation....
Certainly Itanium *IS* emulating PA-RISC as well as x86.
http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/advantage/aries.html
"With our Aries emulator that will be bundled with all ItaniumT processor
family systems, you can execute PA-RISC applications"
> Further, since they have the same chip pins and the 9000's
> are therefore compatible with this new chip already, it's
> safe to say the only thing this manuever is doing is transfering
> the burden and cost from one Intel subsidy to the main body.
>
> There may be some slight improvement in newer chips, but
> the architecture is the same...
You don't appear to understand what a processor architecture is. It's
architecture includes such things as pipelining, branch prediction and
speculation, loop unrolling, etc... these are all wildly different from the
PA-RISC chip, and despite what you want to believe, they're not
pin-compatible, since these processors are installed in "packages" and not
plugged directly into the motherboard.
> So therefore, Intel is sitting on this chip until MS get's
> it OS ready for market. Without MS's approval the chip
> wouldn't make a grand slam on the market.
You still haven't a clue what you're talking about.
> Now, if you want to continue to pick bones with me about
> the model numbers on the two chips or the fact one has
> double or 4 times the cache the predicessor had, that's
> fine. The point I'm trying to make is architecturally
> the two chips are identical. And it doesn't require
> 2-3 years for a simple expansion of an already existing
> and proven design in use by an Intel subsidary.
They are nothing alike. In fact, the way that you upgrade the L-class
HP-9000 is with a board level replacement.
http://www.hp.com/products1/unixservers/entrylevel/lclass/infolibrary/sysgui
de.html
> I'm still tickled PINK that this was a RISC design.
> Imagine that! After all that BEEFING between Intel
> and Motorola. Intel is just admitting they were
> meatheads so they are stealing their design concept!
HP created EPIC, and teamed up with Intel to create Itanium. EPIC is not
RISC, and Itanium is not RISC.
> You know, an HP rep told me that to compare the performance
> of one of the G4 chips in a MAC and this new IA-64, there
> would be no difference. He said I was drooling on
> the wrong machine. Now I know what he was really refering
> to. What he was trying to say was that RISC is RISC...
Yeah, I'm sure he did. Just like he told you that you were buying IA64
HP9000's, right?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 20:20:50 -0500
"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <jnZN6.2473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:5jYN6.48460
> >> As for my not being open to debate on the fact that the 68000 was far
> >> superior to Intel's offerings of the time...I am also not open to
> >> debate that the sky is blue. I just don't find it interesting to
> >> debate that
> > which
> >> is not debatable.
> >
> > Actually, the sky isn't blue. The sky is colorless, but due to the
> > light filtering properties of the atmosphere, when light is reflected
> > off the earth then reflected back from the sky, it appears to have a
> > blue color. Which is why the stars aren't blue when we look at them from
> > earth.
>
> Wrong again erik, light reflected back to earth from the atmosphere???
> How you already said it was the atmosphere was clear. How does something
> that is clear reflect light? Are you implying that the atmosphere is a
> light trap?
Indeed. The atmosphere does filter out many parts of the light spectrum on
the way in, but when reflected off the earth back up onto the atmosphere, it
reflects blue back down again. Which, as I said, is why the sky isn't blue
at night, and the stars and moon do not appear blue (except during very
interesting atmospheric events).
Take one-way reflective mirroring. It allows light to come through, but
traps much of the light from getting back out. You can only see the light
coming through when it's darker on the mirrored side than it is on the
non-mirrored side.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 01:21:42 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b080d2d$0$37284$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9e1mjh$lor$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Windows comes with WSH, which come with VBS & JS support. You can
> add
> > > > > Perl & Python from activestate.com (free). C#, VB.NET comes with
> .NET
> > > > > beta, and there are also other languages that you can hook there,
I
> > > > > believe.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds better than it was, though with UNIX, you can use an
arbitrary
> > > > executable as the interpreter.
> > >
> > > You can do the same in Windows, what is your point?
> >
> > How do you make a .bat file interpret itself with perl and pass some
> > arguments as it starts? Under unix, making the first line:
> > #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> > would make perl execute it and turn on warnings.
>
> Can you change languages midstream?
>
> Can you jump back and forth between, say, javascript, perl and vbscript as
> you go?
>
> wsh can
Anything can start anything else with all open file/device descriptors
inherited
by the next process. There is no particular reason for a unix process to
embed shared libraries intended for a different environment since starting
a new process is very efficient, but of course they can dynamically link
in anything they want.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Security in Open Source Software
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 01:29:01 GMT
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e9a75$333$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > That's not the only vital point here. First, IIS holds the record this
> > year for the most security patches needed according to some of the
> > tracking sites, so the premise that open source is worse is wrong
> > to begin with. Second. many open source projects are very stable
> > with the same program available and evolving over many years.
> > In these cases the bugs are found and fixed early and you are done
> > with them. Commercial vendors like to force upgrades by writing
>
> Youre assuming. The requiremnet is that there is a systematic audit with
> the primary intention of fixing security related bugs. This does not
happen
> on Linux - as far as i know - and only happens on a major scale on
OpenBSD.
>
> I do agree that Free Software is more secure than proprietary software but
> thats not the same as saying it is secure.
>
> Cheers
And you are assuming that that the systematic audit is going to find bugs
that the author missed. Why do you think that an auditor is going to
be better that the person who designed and wrote the program at
finding an obscure bug? Auditors are people; people make mistakes,
that's why we will always have bugs. Having someone tell you a
program is secure doesn't mean it really is secure, even if you paid
them a lot to tell you that.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 01:43:54 GMT
On Sun, 20 May 2001 19:33:26 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:5jYN6.48460
> > As you know, programmers hated the segmented architecture of Intel
> > machines. As you also know, they loved the flat addressing of the
> > Motorola 680x0 line. Yet they developed for the one they hated to
> > develop for. This indisputable fact directly contradicts your
> > arguments in this thread. You know this, too.
> Actually, "superior" is a subjective claim. I consider the Intel processor
> supperior because it is so prevalent, which is the same reason I consider
> VHS to be superior to Betamax.
Daniel is making the reverse argument. He is saying that developers
think Windows is superior for desktop application development, thus
making Windows popular on the desktop. Weevil is saying that the
reverse is true, that Windows became popular for other reasons (cost,
OEM deals, whatever) and that developers write for it only because it
is popular.
Weevil is using the x86 vs 68K debate to show that developers don't
always get to develop for the platform they prefer.
HTH
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 01:47:19 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b080964$0$37299$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > > Amazing that I've never ever seen an IIS box do that, 4 or 5 - and yet
> you
> > > seem to make it sound like they all do... agenda ??
> >
> > All of mine do it since I moved what a pair of Linux boxes used to do
> > with Apache/mod_perl and some custom programming over to a set of 8
> > Win2k/IIS5 boxes handling the same job with ASP pages that use
> > xml/xsl formatting. The reason for the switch is mostly that the
> > xml data comes from an in-house product and service that we sell
> > and we wanted to use the same technology on our own web site.
> >
> > I had run a pair of Win2k/IIS5 boxes serving only static images
> > for a few months before attempting the dynamic part and they
> > ran fine then. Why would I need an agenda to describe what
> > happens in actual operation? I'd much prefer that it wasn't
> > happening - it is wasting a lot of my time.
>
> Look - the fact that due to some custom programming of YOUR own something
> happens on your boxes that doesn't happen to anyone else - how is that a
> problem with IIS?
The only custom programming involved is in ASP pages that use
documented methods from the msxml3.dll objects. The boxes are
loaded with stock Win2k server, sp1, and the msxml3.dll. All
straight from Microsoft. All of the pages work when tested
individually.
>How about if we take the same ASP pages adn try to run
> them on a linux box and then complain that linux sucks when they don't
run -
> makes about the same amount of sense as what you are trying to foist upon
> us.
Well yes, if the Linux system documented methods that are supposed
to work but in fact cause the server to hang at random I would complain
about that. However, the fact is that my Linux systems work - some
have been up well over a year, and the IIS servers crash daily and
don't restart themselves even though the service is set to automaticall
restart.
> OK, so your systems have a programming problem (something you wrote) -
> quite blaming the OS.
So you think it is fine for IIS to pop a dialog box and wait? I don't
even if the asp code has something wrong. I guess people who
only run MS systems have different expectations about the system
software.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 May 2001 01:47:57 GMT
On Sun, 20 May 2001 15:39:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 11:28:39 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Nope. Someone is copying "me style" to create some traffic.
>>>
>>> My material is much better.
>>>
>>>
>>> flatfish
>>
>>Whatever happened to the ++++?
>
>
> Linux users were complaining that I was putting their el-cheapo Hayes
> Modems circa 1995 into escape (command?) mode :)
>
> flatfish
>
Oh pulllleese !
The Hayes "at" command set is still a standard for modems, in most cases
the "AT" command set will apply to any modem, and any computer, regardles of
OS or hardware type.
I didn't think the "++++" appended to flatfish would have switched the
modem from data to command mode, as the correct sequence is:-
+++ Switch data mode to command mode
Certainly I have replied to many of Flatties Trolls, and have never suffered
this problem.
I suspect Flattie got too many complaints from Windows users, if his clever
story is in any way *factual* (which I doubt).
Good try tho:-
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 May 2001 01:55:51 GMT
On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:40:00 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 19 May 2001 12:58:52 GMT,
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=terry+porter+linux&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&btnG
>> >=Google+Search&meta=site%3Dgroups
>> > Relevant Messages for terry porter linux Results 1 - 10 of about
> 4,330.
>> > Search took 0.56 seconds
>> >
>> Gee I'm a prolific Wintroll baiter arn't I :)
>
> You're one of the best, agreed.
<sly smirk>
> However, I'm not a 'Wintroll' in the true sense of the attribute.
I agree, now that you point it out, but the trolls you do support
tend to make you *appear* as one.
>> > Idiot.
>>
>> Shame shame Uberdummyspitter, I have always posted under 'Terry Porter",
>> (my real name), I *never* change my ID.
>
> I'm sure your friends are proud.
I dunno about that, but if they're not, they should be ;-)
> ( Uberdummyspitter ) good one!
Hahahah glad you liked it :)
>
>> Now even to a intelectually challenged Wintroll like yourself
>> it should be apparent that Flatfish's 2,800 posts would far
>> exceed that number when results from a search for :-
>>
>> "Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
>> S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
>> Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
>>
>> were added to the 2,800 above.
>>
>> Please do your research properly in future, its boring
>> waiting for you to get a clue.
>
> While your point may seem valid, in actuality, it's not.
Damn!
> 'Flattie' as you call this poster, has indeed posted under many names.
> However, as any good LinPert knows, 'Flatfish' has been the consistent
> moniker for months now.
True.
> Given the google archive attrition rate, and the
> fact that google reports your posting rate at 35% greater than the
> 'flatfish' ... one has to question who really spends more time 'trolling'.
Butmy data goes back years, whereas Flattiedidnt *exist* beyond approx
6 months ago ?
> Google gives us that answer.
But you have asked the wrong question!
To be accurate as to whom is the most prolific poster, between Flattie and I,
you must compare post numbers over the same period, namely the period limited
to Flatties existence.
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[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: Mon, 21 May 2001 02:00:38 GMT
In article <jnZN6.2473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:5jYN6.48460
> > As for my not being open to debate on the fact that the 68000 was
> > far superior to Intel's offerings of the time...I am also not open
> > to debate that the sky is blue. I just don't find it interesting
> > to debate that which is not debatable.
>
> Actually, the sky isn't blue. The sky is colorless, but due to the
> light filtering properties of the atmosphere, when light is reflected
> off the earth then reflected back from the sky, it appears to have a
> blue color. Which is why the stars aren't blue when we look at them
> from earth.
No, the sky is blue, unless there are clouds, in which case it's white
or grey, or it's night, in which case it's black or, if city lights are
shining at the sky, a kind of orange/pink.
No, the sky is not blue because of what you say, but becuase of Raleigh
scattering. Blue sunlight is scattered more than red and yellow; thus
the blue light bounces back from all directions, turning the sky blue.
You should get your facts straight before you present silly arguments to
try to refute people.
> But you're right, it's uninteresting to argue that, despite the fact
> that you're wrong.
So why do you go on?
> > It is the fact that the Motorola chips were superior to Intel's as
> > well as being easier (and more fun!) to develop for that destroys
> > your argument in this thread. As you know, programmers hated the
> > segmented architecture of Intel machines. As you also know, they
> > loved the flat addressing of the Motorola 680x0 line. Yet they
> > developed for the one they hated to develop for. This indisputable
> > fact directly contradicts your arguments in this thread. You know
> > this, too.
>
> Actually, "superior" is a subjective claim. I consider the Intel
> processor supperior because it is so prevalent, which is the same
> reason I consider VHS to be superior to Betamax.
Thus cockroaches are vastly superior to human beings, and VW Beetles are
superior to Porsche 911s.
> Yes, the 68000 was superior in ease of programming, yes it was
> superior in ease of motherboard design, no it wasn't superior in
> things like string operations in which the x86 had dedicated
> registers and instructions for the process. Also, the 68000 gave you
> a nasty performance penalty for using long addressing versus 16 bit
> addressing.
I have my doubts here, but I'll leave it to someone who has done
assembly programming on both series of CPUs to address these issues.
> > That you know all this, yet continue to make the same false
> > arguments, makes you one of Bill's whores. He has lots of them.
> > :)
>
> The 6502 was superior to the 68000 in many ways. For instance,
> nearly all instructions took only a single clock cycle to execute,
No. The 6502 did not have an instruction pipeline; the
fetch-decode-execute-store cycle had to be executed for every
instruction, and in all CPUs of the time took on the order of 4 cycles
per instruction.
> but the 68000 had more cycles available.
Uh, the 6502 was a 16-bit CPU, 4MHz, IIRC. The 68000 was a 32-bit CPU
with a 24-bit address space, running at 8MHz. The 68020 and later ones
had a full 32-bit address space and raneven faster. Oh, but I digress.
None of those things matter if more 6502 were made than 68000s. ::roll
eyes::
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Advice needed.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 May 2001 02:00:42 GMT
On Sun, 20 May 2001 11:23:55 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> technologies are still absent. For instance, expect to be shocked by
>> how primitive the font and printing technologies are under Linux.
>> Somehow, Linux grows on you, despite how primitive its technology is.
Why is my font server primitive ?
Why is my 600*600 dpi Postscript Laser with 8 megs ram primitive ?
This poster needs to see the SMT PCB's that I design with Linux, and
re think those claims about 'primitive'
Linux is the ONLY place to get *leading edge* technology, NOW.
>
> I take issue with the bit about printing technology. The printing
> technology is every bit as advanced as Windows' print technology (except
> the filters make it much more flexible) however, it simply has its
> advantages in very different areas.
>
> There was a thread on this earlier (a couple of weeks ago), so I'm no
> going to repeat myself.
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> --
> (You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
>
> /d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
> r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
> }d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
