Linux-Advocacy Digest #658, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission ("Mike")
Re: The nature of competition ("David Dorward")
Re: Things that annoy me in Mandrake Linux ("David Dorward")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission (JS\PL)
Re: Jan Johanson and racism. ("Boris Dynin")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (Ketil Z Malde)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 21 May 2001 04:54:02 GMT
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:cvwN6.7290$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:esmN6.8944$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 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.
>
> It held on for a while on its price, but in the long
> run PCs came down.
>
Yep, all of the 80s. Prices never came down until very recently to the
level of a C64 price, even then it was still more expensive. It took PC
18 years to make it. I bought my first PC, it cost $2000, that was in
1995. I could get a C64 and disk drive in 1984 for about $450, PCs were a
lot higher in 1984, even an Apple II or Mac wasn't cheap. Thats why C64
sold well to a home user in the 80s, it was cheap!
> > > 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.
>
> Yes. MS may not have had the hang of
> segment, maybe.
>
Commodore went to MS for the Basic about 78 or so for the Pets, and
Commodore upgraded it Basic over the years, until the last version was put
out for the C128.
> [snip]
> > > 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.
>
> Yes. A good optimizing compiler was out
> of the quesiton- it was too big for those little
> computers, and anyway optimizing 6502
> machine code is really hard.
>
Real hard? I never thought it was hard, just to alittle bit of time, for
a good programmer. I still remember when I took a C++ class, there was a
student that his average program was almost 10 pages, mine on the other
hand was less than a page in all but one program.
> [snip]
> > > 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.
>
> I think you'll find that today you could not
> mass produse Commodore 64 computers
> cheap enough to win on price.
>
That may be true, but I would bet you could put ALL of the C64 on ONE chip
today. Just compare the first C64 to the C64C, 1/2 the chips.
BTW thats why Commodore redisigned the C64, to make it cheaper.
> There was a time when it was cheaper, but
> that didn't last.
>
> [snip]
> > > 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.
>
> That's not a reason. They couldn't dominate because
> they had a great deal of competation that was
> comparable in quality and price, and they
> didn't have time to sort it out before the PC took
> over.
>
Apple 2, was over $1000, Tandy was crap, the only ones who liked it was
Consumer Reports, the users hated it. (I knew a few who had them.), Atari
X00 wasn't bad bunch of computers, and the only real competation in the
price range. Europe there were alot of small 8 bit computers on the
market, but never made it outside of Europe, MSX from Japan never made it
big. beyond Japan. Did I miss anyone? If you want I could compare all of
them, which is what I did, along time ago for a article I did...
> > Over
> > 10 million C64s and 128s and a few dozon C65s prototypes over the years.
>
> Commodore 65? Never heard of that one.
>
Commodore 65 never really made it past Beta (Alpha?) but the prototype were
sold after they went Bankrupt. I think is emulated in MESS.
> > > 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.
>
> Did this C65 get out of prototype?
>
No, but a company did sell the prototypes.
> The C128 was like the Apple III; a fail attempt to
> nurse a geriatric technology on.
>
I think you mean the Apple 2 GS. The C128 was a great little computer
which sold over 2 million units. They had hardware problems when they tried
to release here in the USA.
> The Amiga was like the Macintosh; an attempt
> to leapfrog the PC and produce something that
> was actually better, not just cheaper.
>
In alot of ways, it was better than the Mac and PC. One little note, the
Amiga could run Mac, faster than a Mac at about the same speed. The only
problem with the Amiga was Commodore, itself.....
> As far as I know Commodore never found
> an equivalent to the Apple IIgs, an succeful
> way to nurse the geriatric technology on
> a big longer.
>
That would have been the C65, if had made it out of the lab....
> > > 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.
>
> Yeah. 1985 was the year with the big price war.
> Blood in the streets, that one. Commodore won,
> if you can call that sort of thing winning. It was
> the apex for the '64, but cheap only goes so far.
>
The C64 dropped in price from $650 to $200, from introduction to late 84.
Dropped another $100 in 85, and the climbed to $139 by 1986.
> PC prices in 1985 were so high that there was
> room for something cheaper. But as PC prices
> came down, that market segment vanished.
>
The market segment vanished because Nintendo, not the PC. You could play
better games on the Nintendo than the C64, so it slowly died over the next
years. It still sold over 1/2 million units a year for the rest of the
decade.
> [snip]
> > > 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.
>
> Well, yeah. To be another C64 they needed to be
> better *and* cheaper, or else a lot cheaper.
>
> The C64 wasn't just cheaper than most of its
> 8-bit competitors; it was in many ways a better
> home computer too. That was very hard to beat.
True, it had the best sound of any computer until the Apple GS.
>
> [snip]
> > > > 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.
>
> I don't understand. A "compiler for the programmer"? You
> compile programmers? Doesn't that hurt? :/
I mean an easy to use compiler, just compare Commodore Assembly, you had
to write the code in an editor, save the code, load the compiler, compile
the code, load the code, and then final run the code. With Buddy (and some
others) you could use the built in Basic Editor, then type RUN to compile
the code and run your code with SYS command. It made programming alot
easier. It made doing Assembly not much harder than writing Basic.
>
> > > 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.
>
> No, it was just that a good optimizer was more than
> those little things could handle.
>
True, but I have seen code done on one of the those cross compilers, a
good programmer could write the same. Just take a look at some of the
demos that were put out, they blew away most programs and all they used was
a C64, and a Assembly.
> > If you left the memory map alone, it wasn't hard to
> > program on the C64.
>
> Compared to modern tools?
>
I would never want to go back to the way I programmed on the C64, but you
did what you had to do...
> I mean, yes, compared to a TI-44/9a the C64
> simply rocked. It even compared favorably
> to early Apple II models, and was cheaper
> to boot.
>
It was better and Cheaper than an Apple II.
> But next to an IBM PC? Or worst yet, a
> late-eighties Macintosh?
>
If you had the cash.... I didn't have a few grand to drop on the computer,
atleast not until 1995.
> The C64 had no way to grow. It got futher
> and further behind.
>
Because Commodore never made it better, with chips like the 65816 and
others. The Amiga was their focus....
> > 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...
>
> Yeah, the C64 always had a problem with disk
> speed.
If you want speed, try JiffyDos, 10X-15X speed increase with most
programs. The funny thing, the C64 wasn't designed with a slow disk
speed, but because of compatibly with Vic20 hardware, they kept the Vic20
screw up. The C128 finally fixed the disk speed. The disk speed should have
been about the same a Pet with its IEEE interface. They couldn't use IEEE
in the C64, because the price when though the roof for cables and other
parts.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Lots of programmers could do it by *hand*;
> if you could have written a program to do it
> that would run on an 8-bit PC, you would
> have revolutionized the industry.
>
And if you could do in 64K, it would have been a mircle. The problem was
speed of the CPU and memory. Opimizing code takes time, even on my P75,
compile a simple C program could take a minute or two.
> [snip]
> > > 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....
>
> Well, yeah. But there were limits, as long
> as you had a 6502 or Z80 in there.
>
> By the end of the eigties, some of those old
> 8-bits had grown actual APIs. I find that a bit
> remarkable, actually.
>
Not really, when your limited by the hardware, you can make it do
remarkable things. The computer after 8-bit computers, all you did was
throw more hardware at the problem instead of solving the problem with the
resources.
GEOS was a complete replacement and nearly a complete OS for the C64/128,
you were limited to Basic or Assembly though....
> [snip]
> > 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.
>
> Yes, the 6502 was remarkably fast considering the limits
> it had. But more improtantly, keeping it simple made
> it *cheap*.
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm sure you do. I was more of an Apple II fellow myself.
>
The Apple II was expansive, and I had to buy the computer myself.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 05:04:20 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Business has one simple objective. To make a profit.
> The more they can increase sales and reduce the
> expenses the more that profit becomes.
>
> A Redhat equipped Web server is less than 1/10 the
> cost of an equivalent Microsoft server.
>
> There has never been a sucessful company who's
> chose the more expensive way of doing business.
Less than 1/10? Only the cheapest?
Charlie, your knowledge of business is right up there with your English. It
amazes me that anyone could somehow not learn to spell as many words as you
have. It's astounding. Next to that your business acumen is just so
obviously... equivalent.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "David Dorward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:40:39 +0100
It seems that on Mon, 21 May 2001 01:21:38 +0100, someone claiming to be
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed this:
> Interesting, Debian lists 61 security patches so far in 2001 alone.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce-01/threads.html
I wonder if there is a study anywhere comparing time between a
vunerability being identified and a patch becoming available.
--
David Dorward http://www.dorward.co.uk/
The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink
what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. -- Mark Twain
------------------------------
From: "David Dorward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things that annoy me in Mandrake Linux
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:42:29 +0100
It seems that on Sun, 20 May 2001 23:12:27 +0100, someone claiming to be
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed this:
> kosh wrote:
>
>> In both the online help and in the book it tells exactly what each
>> level means and does. The problem is many click on the item without
>> reading any documentation.
>
> Unless one has not the book
IF one does not have the book then one can use the online documentation.
Note the 'AND' in the section of kosh's text.
--
David Dorward http://www.dorward.co.uk/
The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink
what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. -- Mark Twain
------------------------------
From: JS\PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 01:50:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Business has one simple objective. To make a profit.
>> The more they can increase sales and reduce the
>> expenses the more that profit becomes.
Business doesn't have one simple objective. But if it did, the priority
should idealy be growth and equity, not profit.
>>
>> A Redhat equipped Web server is less than 1/10 the
>> cost of an equivalent Microsoft server.
So what. It's all a depreciated tax write off. That's just one more thing
that Windows is better at. :-)
>> There has never been a sucessful company who's
>> chose the more expensive way of doing business.
Companies take the high road every day on a number of issues. The more
successfull ones do it more often than the non-successfull ones.
> Less than 1/10? Only the cheapest?
>
> Charlie, your knowledge of business is right up there with your English.
> It amazes me that anyone could somehow not learn to spell as many words as
> you have. It's astounding. Next to that your business acumen is just so
> obviously... equivalent.
>
> -- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Boris Dynin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Jan Johanson and racism.
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:06:51 -0700
Charlie Ebert - ass headed idiot. You are a joke Charlie. Your laughable
posts only harm Linux or whatever your cause it. Go get college degree
before you post on this newsgroup.
Boris
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Aside from the ususal Flat Fish you can find posting to COLA
> with their rediculous arguments, we have Jan Johanson
> and {HER?} rediculous arguments also.
>
> Posts every 2-5 minutes for 18 straight hours a day 7 days
> a week. You can mainly find Jan Johanson on COLA!
>
> I figured she'd be a tremendous hit with the Rush fans!
>
> And speaking of Rush fans, we now have MS crossposting
> to COLA from RACISTS GROUPS! This is truely fun reading
> and has much to do with Linux VS MS.
>
> Until next time then! From the wild, wild world
> COLA where Linux reighs, this is the PAID WINTROLL REPORT!
>
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 02:20:12 -0400
Michael Vester wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Cornell wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Edward Rosten wrote:
> > > > > >> If you have really firm evidence that homosexualtiy is genetic, I
> > > > > >> suggest you publish.
> > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > > Then you admit that it's a choice.
> > >
> > > > Edward Rosten wrote:
> > > > > Do you think ceberal paulsy a choice? Hint: it isn't genetic.
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > So, you admit that it's a result of a defect of some sort.
> > >
> > > For some animals, sex is determined environmentally. If you are a
> > > crocodile, being male is neither genetic nor a choice - do you
> > > therefore believe that it is a defect?
> >
> > If the environmental effect causes the crocodile successfully seek out
> > reproductive opportunities, and take advantage of them, then no, it is
> > not a defect.
> >
> > On the other hand, if it causes the crocodile to prefer trying to get
> > sex from dead logs than other crocodiles, then yes, it's a defect.
> >
> > Members of the inappropriate sex are, for the purposes of this discussion,
> > the equivalent of dead logs.
> >
> And that is why I think the whole argument is pointless. Homosexuality has
> a powerful limiting force, they tend not to breed. I do not believe it is
> chosen. I can't remember a point in my life where I had to make such a
> decision. Whether it is an organic defect or a personality flaw, is yet
> to be determined.
>
> Personally, I don't care about anyone's sexual preference. In my work
> environment, if I stood up during a meeting and stated, "I like to insert
> my erect penis into a woman's vagina and move it back and forth until I
> ejaculate", I would be promptly fired. Would that be discrimination?
> There are times and places where revealing your sexual preference is not
> welcome or appreciated. It is certainly not appropriate in the work
> place. Sexuality is private and should be kept private.
>
> When I listen to my gay friends whine about work place discrimination, I
> always ask them, "How does anyone know?" In my work place, nobody knows
> my sexual preference and they never will. I am a celibate heterosexual if
> anyone cares. This is a news group and it is not unacceptable to make such
> a statement. The celibacy is a temporary state, I hope. AIDS is a small
> problem compared to the other sexually transmitted diseases. Better
> celibate than dead.
>
Well said.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 07:01:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
>> The person you cite seems to think the name is important. Others will
>> consider the license (which may be the greatest difference in
>> practice).
> If one chooses an operating system for an important
> task based on licensing alone, they need to go find another job.
Really? What if I happen to want to modify the OS and distribute the
result in binary form without relinquishing the source to my
modification?
> Others are idiots.
Thank you.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
