Linux-Advocacy Digest #691, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Windows beats Linux anyday!!! ("Ben Millar")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Richard Herring)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (JamesW)
Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Nick Condon)
Re: The nature of competition (mlw)
Re: Win2000 Annoyances (Marcello Barboni)
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form (Danielle)
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (Marcello Barboni)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 May 2001 06:38:17 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > There was a version of dBase for the TRS-80? News
> > > to me. Sure you don't mean it's predecessor,
> > > the "Vulcan Database"?
> >
> > Im sure. dBAse II ran on the Apple II also. Do you know how?
>
> If it did, I bet it involved putting a CP/M
> computer in an expansion slot. :D
>
Guessing?
> [snip]
> > > There certainly isn't any. CP/M ran on a different
> > > CPU from the IBM-PC. It had not yet been
> > > ported to the 8086.
> >
> > Then why did IBM pay off Kildall?
>
> Same reason MS later paid off Digital;
> they had clearly ripped off big hunks of
> the design, and it wouldn't take *that*
> much creativity to make a lawsuit out
> of it.
>
Other people say differently. Other people say "Microsoft DOS contined
lines of code written by DRI's founder Gary Kildall. In fact, IBM was
so paranoid about that when they realized Gates had sold them a clone,
they paid Kildall about $8000,000..."
I've given you the reference many times.
> [snip]
> > > I'm trying to drag it back to my point;
> > > the PC was a better development platform,
> > > and developers at the time were able to
> > > recognize that.
> >
> > I dont care about deveopers. The conversation started about the
> > relatives merits (or lack) from a user's point of view.
>
> No, I don't think it did. The stuff about
> merit came into this thread when I made
> the argument that the merits of Windows
> had been what attracted developers, and
> that this was what Microsoft's little
> empire was based.
>
And you are wrong. Developers followed the money.
> I was certainly speaking of merits
> for development at all times.
>
But your premise is wrong. They didnt move becasue of development tools.
They moved because they could make money. The tools came later.
> [snip]
> > > You don't seem to take *my* word
> > > for anything, you know.
> >
> > Start getting some things right.
>
> Won't "half-right" do? :D
>
NO. Half-right isnt good enough from grinning dolts.
> [snip]
> > > Brandt, Randy. "Enhancing AppleWorks" (video tape),
> > > July 1993, Quality Computers
> > >
> > > From what I can tell, it appears that Quality
> > > Computer was a software house that produced
> > > AppleWorks add ons, and this Randy Brandt
> > > was a programmer for them.
> >
> > "... this Randy Brandt". You really are clueless about the A2 world,
> > arent you?
>
> You mean there's *another* Randy Brandt
> besides this one?
>
> Or do you just mean he is a famous
> Apple II diehard?
>
Clueless. Just clueless. Ever hear of things like Timeout? Beagle
Brothers? Things like that?
> [snip]
> > > Any suggestions? I'd particularly
> > > like to find out what Brandts source
> > > was.
> >
> > As an Appleworks addon programmer, I'd say he had plenty of sources. Try
> > the Softalk reader's pools.
>
> I fail to see what sources an AppleWorks add-on
> programmer would have so especially.
>
You would.
> What would the Softtalk reader's pools do
> for him?
>
Are you that stupid? How baout give some idea of what people liked..
what was selling... why.
> [snip]
> > > > Apple IIs with SoftCards, maybe? Hmmmm?
> > >
> > > Sticking a CP/M machine into an Apple II
> > > on a card is not a particularly useful solution.
> >
> > It as so not useful that it sold tons, and several versions of Cp/M ran
> > on it.
>
> Hacks like that will sell to hobbists, yes,
> but businesses have better things to do
> than that.
>
Did you just say that businesses did NOT buy the Softcard? Clueless
again.
> It's like the PC-on-a-card add-ons for
> Macs. There's a small market, but it
> doesn't really amount to much in
> the grand scheme of things.
>
Then why did the SoftCard sell so well? Maybe to run CP/M -business-
applications? Hmmm?
> [snip]
> > > That's because the early 8 bit machines-
> > > even the ones that had rudimentary
> > > operating systems- were too small for
> > > meaningful database work.
> >
> > No they werent. Unless you can WP, DB, SS meaningless work.
>
> You might want to read a little more carefully.
> I certainly do not call word processing or
> shreadsheets "meaningful database work";
Why dont you go to an administrative assistant convention and tell them
they do meaningless work. Or tell an accountant. You really are an
arrogant self-important SOB.
> and the glorified cardfiles you could get- like
> the one in AppleWorks- hardly count.
>
Does dBMaster Pro count? Does dBAse II count? What counts except what
you like? Who do you think bought Apple IIs and Visicalc? "Hobbyists"?
Oh, Im sorry. Did that scare you?
> [snip]
> > > A few people were programming a precursor
> > > to dBase.
> > >
> > > 144k floppies and 64k of RAM do not make
> > > for very impressive database systems, though. :(
> >
> > Appaently they were better than 0k floppies and 0K ram.
>
> Well, yes, but you could get *real*
> database from any number of sources;
> you just had to get a minicomputer.
>
Sure. Just any pld litle office could bet a mini. Idiot.
> Sure, it cost a little more, but it would do
> the job.
>
> Databases are one of the most popular
> uses for computers, and DOS had
> lots of them. They were widely used;
> because it could do many of the tasks
> you used to need a minicomputer for,
> as long as the scale was not to big.
>
Other computers ahd datanses too. Just becasue you dont think anything
counted before the PeeCee doesnt make that right.
> And it was a lot cheaper.
>
> [snip]
> > > Lots of people wrote for them. They
> > > were *much* cheaper than the minis, and
> > > they had things like graphics supports that
> > > the big computers usually didn't.
> >
> > Careful.. you are dangerously close to saying something nice about the
> > micros.
>
> Is that bad?
>
Apparently you seem to think so.
> [snip]
> > > Appleworks had three modules, a word processor
> > > that was decent, a spreadsheet that was rather
> > > primitive and a database that was primitive to
> > > the point of useless (a sore point for many
> > > integrated packages, actually.)
> >
> > Appleworks was Sooooooooo bad it sold and sold and sold...
>
> Sure. It was cheap software that took
> good advantage of the Apple //e. It was
> quite reasonable for a word processor, and
> usable for light spreadsheet duties.
>
> The //e was, after all, cheaper than the IBM
> PCs of its time. Sure, Commodore 64s
> were even cheaper, but they ahd terrible
> keyboards, slow disks, and they didn't
> have 80-column text.
>
> In 1981, however, the PC was up against
> the Apple ][+, which also had a terrible
> keyboard, no lowercase, and only 40
> column text.
>
And it had VisiCalc, and lowercase kits and 80 column video cards.
> Faced with the PC, Apple corrected
> these shortcomings and gained some
> breathing room, but in the long run
> they just weren't going anywhere
> with a 6502 in there.
>
> [snip]
> > > I suspect you mean something funny by "reports". ClarisWorks
> > > couldn't generate reports, either.
> >
> > I suspect you mean something funny by reports. I mean what comes out
> > when you generate reports.
>
> I mean the kind of things programs
> like Crystal Reports do, or what programs
> like RPG did for years.
>
Too bad you dont mean reports like normal people mean it.
> > > But it could embed life spreadsheets or images in other
> > > documents. At the time, this was radical.
> >
> > You're contadicting your self here. Before you said it wasnt too
> > integrated.
>
> ClarisWorks was plenty integrated. *Microsoft*
> Works wasn't.
>
m$ Works was just as integrated as Clarisworks, without the GUI.
> [snip]
> > > AppleWorks was not really all that innovative;
> > > it was a good implementation, that's all.
> >
> > What was better, no.. what was even at that level in the micro world at
> > that time?
>
> There were other integrated
> packages, but I am not familiar enough
> with them to tell you what their strengths
> were.
>
Just name 3. # that were out within 1 year of Appleworks.
> Since you know everything about early 80's
> micros, perhaps you could point out
> AppleWorks' competition, and tell us all
> how exactly they fell short of AppleWorks
> standards?
>
I just said there wasnt any competition. For a while.
> It would boost your argument considerably,
> if you did.
>
Like you'd lieten?
> [snip]
> > You have been dissing it for 10s of messages, and now you say you don't
> > mean to suggest it was a bad product???
>
> Yes. Exactly. :D
>
So, now you are a schzophrenic, passive-agressive.
> [snip]
> > > I give Woz great credit for getting the cheapest
> > > graphics system ever seen out the door- but
> > > that doesn't make it the best, just the cheapest.
> > > By 1981 the C64 was better at graphics *and*
> > > cheaper, so I discount that one.
> >
> > I say again... engineers of the time considered it a work of art, a true
> > innovation.
>
> In 1978 (or was it 77?) it was the best
> you could have for the price. In 1981 that
> was no longer true.
>
> Some engineers may have considered it clever,
> but I consider it a kludge.
>
That just shouw you self-important arrogance.
> [snip]
> > > But the Apple II had some serious
> > > drawbacks. Not having lowercase
> > > really put a crimp in it for some
> > > applications- like word processing.
> >
> > ... an kits were available.
>
> That is not much of an alibi. You
> really should need an add-on kit
> for lower-case support.
>
Like anyone really knew the micro market at the time. These were still
pioneers.
> The Apple //e fixed this, but
> by then the tide was already
> turning, if indeed it had not turned
> entirely.
>
> [snip- MS BASIC]
> > > Using *that* for things like disc access
> > > programatically was most entertaining.
> >
> > It worked.
>
> Actually, many programs dispensed with
> it. What they did was to call directly into
> the internals of the disk controller code
> to read and write sectors, and to hell with
> the filesystem.
>
> That was a lot faster, and you didn't
> have to crap around with BASIC.
>
> ProDOS fixed this, but it was a bit
> on the late side.
>
> [snip]
> > > I was just guessing. Sounds like you
> > > haven't used the II+, the model current
> > > in 1981.
> >
> > You guess a lot. You assume a lot.
>
> Well, it could be that you are
> comparing 1987 Apple IIs with
> 1981 IBM PCs because you
> feel this will help your case...
>
> but if so, you really should let me
> do the reverse, don't you think?
>
> You have shown little knowledge
> of the changes the Apple II underwent
> in the aftermath of the IBM PC's
> arrival.
>
> [snip]
> > > :D
> > >
> > > I mean, there reasons for using big iron
> > > over PCs for some things, but I can't think
> > > of anything for which the reason to do so
> > > would be "the PC just can't do it".
> >
> > What reasons are there for using big iron for office work?
>
> What do you mean by "office work"?
>
Dolt. Did the quotes scare you? "office work" mean work done in an
"office".
> If you mean the work done by MS Office
> and equivalents, there is no reason; mainframes
> are terrible at it.
>
> If you mean "work done in the offices
> of business", the main reason is that
> this stuff is highly critical and the bigger
> offices do not want to trust their
> critical data to some johnny come
> lately technology.
>
You just said bigger offices dont use m$ Office.
> This isn't superstition; mainframe software
> tends to be very stable, because it is
> very mature. Some people *do* think
> that not crashing is rather important.
>
> [snip]
> > > You really want to know?
> >
> > ... actually? No.
>
> D'oh!
>
> [snip]
> > <snnip> how'd it feel?
>
> Felt great!
>
> > Mainframes run older software? My Tandy Model 102 is a mainframe?
>
> No. The Tandy Model 102 is an '80s
> computer. A young whipper snapper. A
> veritable babe in the woods.
>
> I had one of those once. Neat little
> toy. So cute. Adorable, really.
You really are a jerk.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Ben Millar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows beats Linux anyday!!!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:48:14 GMT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Herring)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 22 May 2001 10:37:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Culley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Would one of you physicists like to comment garbage below.
> > >
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >>
> > >> Radio waves are not light!
> >
> > It's electromagnetic radiation, same as light.
> From a certain stance yes, and from another no. At lower frequencies,
> EM waves do not even act like light.... do a smith chart on an antennae
> and then tell me that that is like light waves.
Sure is. The Smith chart usually describes the amplitude
and phase relationship of E and B in a transmission line.
You use *exactly* the same methods to describe light in a
refractive medium.
--
Richard Herring | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: JamesW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:45:39 +0100
In article <9e3jit$qb4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "chrisv"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
> >
> >
> > Does not Intel own and manufacture the ARM processor?
>
> They own the company that makes ARM. The people employed to make the ARM
> are not directly employed by intel.
>
> -Ed
I thought Intel were a 'strategic partner' of ARM Holdings not the owner.
ARM Holdings is based in Cambridge - they design the StrongARM chips and
license these designs to others (Intel) to manufacture. Incidently
Motorola use StrongARM chips in their mobile phones.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 21:18:40 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux
Glitch wrote:
>
> > Having tinkered with Linux for more than a year, I finally made the
> > break with Windows and only use it to play games. Although I cannot
> > install programs that are not RPM's yet - and editing configuration
> > files are confusing to me - I did get Star Office up which is the main
> > thing I use my computer for.
> >
> > I really wonder how MS new security measures on their software, is going
> > to effect the average user. For me it was enough to tick me off and make
> > a switch to another operating system.
> >
> > Well off to learn something called the command line :-)
> >
>
> you don't neeed the command line for the most part
Is that where Linux is headed?
IanP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 22 May 2001 11:40:30 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
>Ed - you are a mess...
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > The only thing that matters to you is that Linux is Open source.
>> > i.e., Open Source=Better than everything else. Simply by the virtue
>> > of the fact that you have the code in your hands means that it's
>> > better than anything else.
>>
>> Anecdotal evidence suggests that this model works extermely well.
>
>Actually quite the contrary. Can you point to ANY successful open source
>business? Didn't think so. I don't expect we'll see any either.
As they said this week in The Economist: "Open source is ... a profound
effect of the Internet, which means it is here to stay."
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=620445
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 07:39:49 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> In fact, with kernel frame buffer support, there is no reason that
> Linux
>> >> would be any slower than any other OS on the same hardware.
>>
>> > TiVo doesn't do video editing, it only does video capture/playback
> to/from
>> > mpeg. While, that's not a simple task by any measure, TiVo isn't doing
> this
>> > through X, it's doing it to a dedicated framebuffer.
>>
>> What, you mean displaying a video stream? I agree X isn't a good
>> choice for this, since you simply do not nead any of its features.
>
> Yes, you do need X's features. You need windowing, the ability to drag
> clips around on a screen, select sections of a timeline, etc...
>
>> > Video Editing [...] Of course this is mostly hardware, but the GUI
>> > must be fast enough to deal with it, and XFree simply isn't up to
>> > the job.
>>
>> Why not? Certainly my aging computer can display video streams using
>> only software YUV decoding, with a modern card supporting this in
>> hardware, I don't perceive any problem.
>
> And you can display full speed 720x480 in a window without dropped frames?
> and it can do two simultaneously? In XFree86? Without latency?
If the hardware is cabable of it, and the application has a frame buffer
mapped, then there is no technical reason why not.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Marcello Barboni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 Annoyances
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:49:50 GMT
Mike Vance wrote:
> 5) Tired of having to reinstall Windows and every single app from
> scratch whenever I upgrade to a new motherboard. Probably some pros out
> there know how to get around having to do this but MS seems to want the
> OS and the Apps to be so installation-program dependant.
I have a dual boot system (linux mdk8 and win98 for gaming), I recently
upgraded from a celeron 700 to a celeron 800 (didn't change anything else)
and obviously linux didn't give a damn. After a few days I decided to boot
win98 to play Unreal, and what do you know? - win98 greeted me by finding
"new hardware" such as my NIC my SCSI card, plus a mysterious "unsupported
device". At the end of the story (and after 3 reboots) it BSOD'ed.
Everytime I boot it it still asks me for the drivers for this unknown
device, so I just decided I'll play Unreal when I'll be ready to pass the
whole day fighting this brain dead system.... and then people claim that
*linux* is a difficult system to use....
Marcello
--
antispam
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Danielle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:51:34 +1200
On Tue, 22 May 2001 00:23:38 -0700, "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Aaron R. Kakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> jackie wrote:
>> > amusingly enough if homosexuality is genetic the genes promoting it may
>> > well be more numerous today because homophobia is so universal. that is
>> > to say, by forcing men who would prefer the only the company of men to
>> > marry a beard society has generated more of the very thing that might
>> ^^^^^
>> is this a typo?
>
>LOL! Aaron you have reached levels of ignorance that are shocking even for
>you!
>
>A beard is a member of the opposite sex a homosexual person gets married to,
>or has a similar kind of relationship with, in order to look straight.
>
>J
I didn't know that either.
------------------------------
From: Marcello Barboni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:57:04 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> Pete, that sentence has syntax error's, please correct and repost.
^^^^^^^^
uhm.... :-)
Marcello
--
antispam
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
