Things Linux can't do!
Charlie Ebert
Linux can't go bankrupt.
Linux will never be drawn into an anti monopolistic lawsuit with the
Federal Government, or any other Government.
Linux will never be mis-trusted by the public.
Linux will be around when Bill Gates dies.
Linux will be around when Microsoft has long been forgotten and copies
of
NT are in the Smithsonian on display!
Linux will most likely outlast several of the worlds governments.
While it's name might not continue to be Linux, through the centuries it
will travel,
it will always be with mankind.
Linux is like a statue which has traveled through time.
Linux is like the human race - as long as there is love it will be
there.
In a strange way, Linux is like the pyramids in the respect that it will
be
with mankind for several centuries.
When I went to the Federal Courthouse one time, I had a man explain
to me that he works for another man who can only be fired by god.
But despite that, a Federal Judge will never be able to do anything
about
Linux.
Linux doesn't require a profit to survive!
Linux just needs humans, a small group of humans, to survive.
And we are the generation which has witnessed it's birth.
And for that I feel privileged.
And because Linux has the power of life itself, I really wonder why
people
still have faith that Microsoft will be with us in 10 years much less
20.
Isn't Microsoft a corporation? There are a few corporations which are
100 years old.
Don't think the average life span of a computer related corporation is
anything to write
home about.
Microsoft is but a mere mortal where Linux is a god!
And as we all know, mere mortals die.
And god's can die too, if they are not loved or needed.
But even gods can be forgotten for several hundred years and then
be re-discovered and re-incarnated.
No mortal has ever come back from the grave though.
And by the way, haven't you slept long enough?
Charlie
CAguy
wrote:
Don't be so sure...A judge could declare the GPL to be
invalid allowing companies to build proprientary Linux
versions...hopelessly fragmenting the Linux community.
It could happen...
James
John S. Dyson
> Is this an "American Dream"?
>
> No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American pride,
> but Linus is not.
>
Linus' nationality has nothing to do with the sometimes irritating mess that
Windows* is. Bill Gates' nationality has nothing to do with the licensing
mess
that Linux is.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
jdy...@nc.com | and it irritates the pig.
ax
No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American pride,
but Linus is not.
"Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
news:391B4597...@mmcable.com...
> Charlie
ax
"John S. Dyson" <dy...@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:391B5A5E...@iquest.net...
> ax wrote:
>
> > Is this an "American Dream"?
> >
> > No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American
pride,
> > but Linus is not.
> >
>
that
> Windows* is. Bill Gates' nationality has nothing to do with the licensing
> mess
> that Linux is.
>
I remember a posting titled "Binary Thinking" by a sixteen year old a while
ago in this group. That posting spoke better than what I said.
ax
> Linus' nationality has nothing to do with the sometimes irritating mess
that
> Windows* is. Bill Gates' nationality has nothing to do with the licensing
> mess
> that Linux is.
>
If Linus was American, he may not put Linux under GPL.
If Bill Gates is not American, he may not be brought to court
for building a company with monopoly power. Without the
timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
pac...@my-deja.com
"ax" <a...@magma.ca> wrote:
<snip>
> Without the
> timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
Sure. This industry is all about change. Change wiped out DEC, sent
IBM to its knees, and made a monopoly out of a half-assed desktop
operating systems vendor.
Its time for a change again.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
R.E.Ballard
"ax" <a...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Is this an "American Dream"?
>
> No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates,
> he is still your American pride,
Al Capone was an American too, and at one point, one of the
richest and most powerful men of his time.
Microsoft has been judged to be a criminal organization,
in violation of a law which is only prosecuted in the
event of the most flagrant abuses of power.
I 1776, King George "owned" the colonies of America. He
imposed sanctions and compulsory trade sanctions which
were imposed without the consent of the governed.
In 1996, Bill Gates was effectively imposing a "tax", collecting
a substantial portion of revenue from every PC user. The PC
had as much impact on trade and commerce in 1996 as ink and paper
had in 1776. King George taxed ink and paper, and tea. At that
time, ink and paper were essential to commerce, and tea was an
occaision for conducting business.
> but Linus is not.
Linus is one of thousands, pehaps hundreds of thousands,
of participants. Linus named a UNIX like operating system
after himself (actually Linux stands for Linux Is Not UniX)
the incidental association was probably intentional, but
rather cute in the unpretentiousness.
Linus also made a great "poster child" too. He was young,
Generation X - the generation that literally "grew up digital".
And Linux made a good "Brand Name" that made it possible to
disassociate the Open Source software, (which just happened to
include the Linux kernel) from UNIX, a proprietary operating
system supported by proprietary software - often based on
BSD software.
> "Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> news:391B4597...@mmcable.com...
> >
> > Linux can't go bankrupt.
Linux is one conversation within the larger conversation we now
call Open Source.
This was a conversation that actually began in 1983, when AT&T
was suddenly permitted to sell it's UNIX operating system, in
direct competition and conflict with Berkeley (BSD) UNIX.
In 1983 and 1984, UNIX was a fledgling operating system facing
two would-be and former monopolies - IBM and AT&T. Each of these
huge organizations had the economic power to shut down the UNIX
operating sysetm - had it remained in public domain.
In the usenet newsgroup, which was primarily a bunch of researchers,
government workers, and students who happened to use UNIX and shared
information via the newsgroups that were relayed from server to server
over dial-up UUCP lines, a group of developers, lawyers, and advocates
began discussing methods of preventing IBM and AT&T from taking the
public software stored in public repositories such as SIMTEL-20, and
in public domain.
In addition, students at Berkely, MIT, and dozens of other universities
and colleges had written numerous programs and utilities, often as
team projects, masters thesis projects, and even as part of PhD
dissertations. Most of the contributors had been using UNIX for
3-5 years and were completing 5 year engineering degrees. (the myth
that UNIX programs were written by college freshmen after beer parties
are highly exaggerated).
Richard Stallman was one of the participants in this conversation.
He had written emacs and had already seen Gosling "embrace and extend"
his software without even offering to pay him a modest royalty.
As he shared his actual experience, about 10 developers and 35 lawyers
worked together for about 6 months to draft what is now known as the
"GNU Manefesto", and the "General Public License". It was carefully
drafted to exploit the license terms, especially control over
derivative works. It his heavily grounded it law, has been carefully
reviewed, and is backed heavily by legal precident. Most lawyers won't
even consider going after the GPL, since it would further validate
the GPL, expose corporations to much more liability, and possibly
even result in migration of intellectual property from proprietary
custody to general public license.
Ironically, the principles that drove GPL and GNU were actually
first outlined by IBM and AT&T. Both companies realised that as
computer hardware got less exensive, and software got more complex
and required more customisation, that the cultivation and harvesting
of intellectual capital would eventually become critical to the
success of any company in the information technology industry,
including the IT departments of companies that provided goods
and services that had nothing to do with IT.
The biggest concern was that some companies would "take" and not
"give back". They would harvest intellectual property, create
derivative works with included enhancements, and use this against
the very contributors of the basic work (Sound familiar - Microsoft
vs Netscape)
Over the next year, the GNU General Public License was drafted,
negotiated, and adopted. Even before the final wording of the
GPL was published, applications were being published into public
repositories under the GPL. When a conflict of interest emerged
between Simtel 20 and GPL contributors (Simtel 20 submissions were
previously public domain), Richard Stallman organized volunteers
at MIT and other mirror sites to create repositories for GPL
software. The Free Software Foundation not only became a public
repository, but because the repository grew so quickly (nearly
400 megabytes in less than a year), they also took on distribution,
and eventually took an active role in coordinating the releases.
Nearly all of the software comes from FSF archives and repositories,
which include both GPL and BSDL software.
Over the next 14 years, there have been a number of variations
on the GPL, as many as 30 variants have been mentioned in one
Linux workshop. Even today, Linux distributors contribute to
the FSF in exchange for the benefit of coordinated releases.
By making FSF a nonprofit organization, there were no stockholders,
no directors, no owners, and no one to "cut a deal" with. The
software in the FSF archives is held in public trust. This also
provides a tax benefit, since corporations aren't required to
contribute cash. Many large corporations make tax deductable
contributions to the FSF, but other companies just contribute
intellectual property, including design, specification, source
code, documentation, developer support, marketing (advocacy) and
user support.
Actually, if you put all of the contributors and capital into
terms of standard billable rates and cash equivalent value,
the FSF would be a remarkably large corporation with a
"payroll" of several million dollars. If you were to calculate
the value of the distributed software in comparative terms to
Microsoft, the FSF would be distributing "revenue" worth several
billion dollars. When you consider the value of Open Source
products used on UNIX, Linux, and Windows systems, the overall
"value" of this contribution is probably worth several billion
dollars. When you consider the impact this technology has had
on the flow of goods and services resulting from the internet,
just in time supply chain management, and other "secondary"
side effects, you could value the contribution of the FSF in
trillions of dollars.
Microsoft essentially treated the computer as a glorified
"office suite", a better typewriter (designed to allow
keyboard input which was intended for printer output),
a better calculator (spreadsheets), and a better
chalkboard (Powerpoint).
The FSF paradigm was based on the concept that information
models reality, which then makes it possible for information
to generate reality. By combining information in trusted and
understandable form, and communicating that effectively in
a form that could be filtered, factored, sorted, searched, and
parsed, and using that information to cause actions in the real
world, the economy itself has been altered.
For example, by taking thousands of weather readings on a second
by second basis, and creating mathmatical models based on those
readings, it became possible to predict catastrophic weather
events and mitigate the damage, redeploy resources, and rapidly
recover.
By finding ways to monitor and distribute trading information
and news, it became possible to stabilize the economy, to recover
from market swings that would have previously caused a panic in
a matter of a few hours.
Productivity resulting from the ability to track and trace everything
from network traffic to shipping activity in real-time has increased
beyond anything previously considered possible in the previous
paradigm. In 1990, even the most optimistic pundits predicted the
collapse of the economy by 1995. They couldn't even conceive of
the impact of TCP/IP, heterogeneous networks, the Internet,
and giving giving hundreds of millions of users limited but direct
access to tens of millions of UNIX servers.
> > Linux will never be drawn into an
> > anti monopolistic lawsuit with the
> > Federal Government, or any other Government.
True. The GPL is contriversial, and there are many variations
which are designed to address the blend of public trust interests
and corporate economic interests.
> > Linux will never be mis-trusted by the public.
Actually, Linux is slowly earning more and more public
trust. Many of those who were misinformed by corporate
interests such as Microsoft are just beginning to experience
the benefits of Linux as Linux. Microsoft has traditionally
taken credit for the benefits of Open Source initiatives such
as E-mail, the Web, News groups, and Internet Relay Chat.
Microsoft puts proprietary wrappers and links them to fringe
products such as back-office, and promotes it as a major
innovation. Ironically, the very features that Microsoft's
technology is designed to promote (passing of MS-Office documents
via email and web) have repeatedly resulted in embarassing bugs,
viruses, worms, and mischief - primarily as a direct result of
the proprietary nature. Imagine the consequences of combining
a virus like "i love you" with more traditional viruses that
implant stealth viruses on all other attachments. I find it
astonishing that anyone accepts or sends Word, Excel, or
Powerpoint documents via e-mail at all.
> > Linux will be around when Bill Gates dies.
This would be like saying that the Constitution would be here
after King George died. The Constitution exists because it
is supported by an infrastructure that balances the need for
refinement (amendments) with the need for stability and enforcement.
What makes the constitution work is a set of fundamental concepts,
not the least of which is the importance of the rights of the
individual, the minority, the local government, and the state
government. Rather than delegate massive power to a Regent which
he then delegated to the remainder of the infrastructure, we
empowered the individual, who delegated power to the localities
who delegated power to the states, who delegated power to the
federal government. The concept was outlined in the Declaration
of Independence, and implemented in the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights.
In the Open Source world, the GNU manefesto expresses the principles
behind Open Source in general. The GPL and other Public Licenses
are structures for the implementation of these principles.
> > Linux will be around when Microsoft
> > has long been forgotten and copies of
> > NT are in the Smithsonian on display!
Aren't copies of NT 3.x in the Smithsonian already?
Linux will evolve. It's likely that we will look at
Mandrake 7.0 as little as 1 year from now and consider
it "antique". We'll see the GPL "core" supported by
a combination of Open Source and proprietary interests,
much like the constitution balances the interests of
the individual and corporate economic interests.
I some domains, Linux users would be better served by
proprietary software sold in a competitive market. In
other cases, Open Source meets needs that couldn't be
filled cost-effectively earlier.
> > Linux will most likely outlast several
> > of the worlds governments.
It's already outlasted the Soviet Union, Kosovo, Serbia, and
a number of other smaller countries. Linux has been around
and "making a difference" since 1992, when it was first
deployed by BBS operators to provide usenet, email, and
terminal server (PPP and SLIP) access.
> > While it's name might not continue to be Linux,
A number of proprietary interests have created pseudonyms
for Linux, by focusing on Function. Internet servers,
Firewalls, Intranet, Extranet, Network Computers,
Application Services, E-Commerce, E-Business, B2B,
and Information Appliances are all euphemisms created
by proprietary interests seeking to take markets
initiated and cultivated by Linux. Often, Microsoft
would announce functions implemented and established
by Linux, handed off to UNIX, and nearly permeating
the public conversation anonymously, and claim these
as "innovations". The only "innovations" were that
Microsoft found ways to corrupt the standards established
by Linux and UNIX.
> > through the centuries it will travel,
> > it will always be with mankind.
Always is a long time. The printed book has only been around
for about 500 years. The printed Bible became a propaganda tool
used to control the educated masses. Today, books exist, but
they play a much smaller role in the overall culture and information
flow. In fact, today, if you can read it on hard-copy, it's
probably obsolete.
> > Linux is like a statue which has traveled through time.
Linux is an expression of a conversation that was first
expressed in the Magna Carta (possibly earlier?). It is
that centralization of power - in this case through the
control of information flow - by a very small group of
people (a few good regents or Microsoft execs) is contrary
to the long term interests of society as a whole. The right
to trial by peers, to know the charges, to due process of law,
and that leaders govern by the informed consent of the governed,
is nearly 700 years old.
The U.S. bill of rights guaranteed the right of the individual
to due process, trial, legal representation, to call and cross
examin witnesses, to know the exact nature of the charges against
you, and to privacy.
The GNU manefesto addresses the potential for abuse of information,
and for the abuse of control of information. It expresses the
sentement that an informed decision maker can make better decisions.
It points out that when a proprietary interest controls the software
used to create and/or view information, it controls the flow of
the information itself. This control can include both the exclusion
of those who do not have the proprietary product, and the covert
disclosure of information through code hidden within the proprietary
product.
The GNU manefesto proposes that in order to truly control and
protect information, you have to know the content of the code
used to manipulate and distribute that information.
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both saw the potential available in
controlling this information flow, and sought to control. Jobs
used to say "Information IS Power". Gates was equally articulate,
"Find out what they need, make them think they need you, and you
have power over them". Find out what they need (gather information
covertly, before they realize you know what they need), Make them
think they need you (control the flow of information such that they
can see no solution other than depending on you) and you have power
(to collect money, to control their company, to get stock options,
to force exclusion of competitors, to choose takeover targets
before they realize how valuable you are).
The KGB, Hitler's SS, the CIA, and the other intelligence agencies
have been trying to control information for years. This includes
the collection of information (by any means), the disemination
of propaganda, and the censorship of alternative viewpoints. If
a government agency did what Microsoft does routinely, the public
would be outraged. That Microsoft still has the support of the
general public even after numerous disasters in court, including
a conviction for Antitrust violations, is merey a tribute to the
degree to which Microsoft is able to control information. Not only
computer information, but also Television, Radio, Print, and
other mass media.
The richest man in the world loses half his fortune in 6 months,
and it isn't even covered. He lies to a federal judge, his
executives admit to illegal activities with justifications such
as "anti-piracy", "right to innovate", "right to protect intellectual
property", and "right to protect the brand name", and admit to
contracturally forcing corporations and individuals to forfeit
their right to privacy, their right to innovate, their right to
protect their own intellectual property, and the right to make
informed decisions (as opposed to misinformed decisions).
> > Linux is like the human race -
> > as long as there is love it will be there.
We've been through 5 major religious shifts in the previous
2000 years, including shift from greek dieties, to roman dieties,
norse dieties and islam, to the christian crusades to the inquisition
to reformation, to republics to democracy to a world communicating
for the betterment of all (got expressing himself in our group
concience - agreements backed by substantial unanimity).
> > In a strange way, Linux is like the
> > pyramids in the respect that it will be
> > with mankind for several centuries.
Linux is part of a conversation that has been evolving
for centuries - a conversation essential to the peaceful
coexistence of a population of 6 billion and growing.
In the past, the alternative to a government by consent
and agreement has been the mass extermination of major
segments of the population - the "Black Plague", the 100 years
war, the Pragram, the Holocaust, and world wars, including
genocidal wars like Vietnam (designed to cause the death of
thousands of "scouts". Even in China, parents have been
encouraged to create a shortage of women which limits the
capacity for population growth. This meant abortion and/or
infanticide.
> > When I went to the Federal Courthouse
> > one time, I had a man explain
> > to me that he works for another man
> > who can only be fired by god.
There are many causes of death.
> > But despite that, a Federal Judge
> > will never be able to do anything
> > about Linux.
Perhapse a U.S. judge would be limited. In other countries,
one might decide that total control of information is a "good thing",
and would seek to nullify international patent and copyright laws
that restrict the ability to create derivative works.
> > Linux doesn't require a profit to survive!
Not entirely true. Linux depends on infrastructure for distribution,
marketing, brand-building, and user support. According to the
GNU manifesto "The profit is in support". Ironically, this creates
incentives to create customized code used by a single client.
> > Linux just needs humans, a small group of humans, to survive.
Partially true. Linux is really "The Linux Distribution", which
requires the support of several thousand people, a substantial
communications infrastructure (Internet), and a substantial
distribution network. There are over 1000 packages, and each
package averages about 1 million lines of code. The typical
Linux distribution (just the Open Source portion) is over
500 megabytes compressed.
> > And we are the generation which has witnessed it's birth.
I am from the generation that concieved it. Richard Stallman
and those many other contributors built the infrastructure.
Microsoft's bundling of Office triggered support of Linux,
and the infrastructure nurtured the product.
> > And for that I feel privileged.
As do I. I'm a bit of a phantom - directly involved for nearly
18 years, yet existing as a public persona as little more than
a series of e-mail addresses.
> > And because Linux has the power of
> > life itself, I really wonder why people
> > still have faith that Microsoft will be
> > with us in 10 years much less 20.
When radio came out, people predicted the demise of newspapers.
Newspaper took on a different role. When television came out,
people predicted the demise of radio. Radio simply took on a
different role. Radio stations thrive in the form of syndicated
radio talk-shows, in-depth coverage, and minute by minute updates.
Newspapers provide hundreds of details that aren't even mentioned
in the television and radio coverage.
Linux is a new paradigm, and Microsoft will be impacted and effected.
They will need to adapt and focus on what they do best (make new
programs easy to learn) and surrender that which Linux, UNIX, and
Open Source do best (provide outstanding functionality at very low
cost).
> > Isn't Microsoft a corporation?
No. Microsoft is merely an expression of another very old
conversation. Since Alexander the Great, the possibility of
world domination has become the obsession of remarkable men
such as Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, Hitler,
Stalin, and now Gates.
Each used the best technology of his day. They combined
effective control of information, effective combat strategies,
and effective technology to leverage an advantage over
any opposition. They accomplished something great initially
and were soon surrounded by those obsessed with power, who
forced the abuse of power.
Alexandar used the Phalanx, the Ceasars used circuses, crucifixion,
and the Roman Legion, Napoleon managed logistics and supply lines,
Hitler exploited airplanes, tanks, propaganda, intelligence gathering,
and the Houlocaust.
Bill Gates is a bit more sophisticated. A more benevolent dictator.
His tactics included gathering of information through access to
people's private storage, one-sided contracts,
all or nothing terms, contracts designed to exclude competitors,
and nondisclosure agreements, along with hostile takeovers and
acceptance of royalty payments in equity.
> > There are a few corporations which are 100 years old.
Actually, this conversation is probably as old as mankind.
Before Rameses, there was probably some Neanderthal committed
to world domination (all 500 people). It's the desire to BE GOD!
On the other hand, each participant was destroyed in their prime.
Hannable showed up with Elephants and wiped out Alexander. Ghengis
Khan showed up with armored riders on horseback and nearly sacked
Rome. Wellington forced Napoleon to overextend his supply line
and then cut it. And Churchill cracked Hitler's enigma got the
U.S. and the USSR involved, and Linus Torvalds published Linux under
the GPL. The voice of liberty finds a champion - usually some
unsuspecting soul who didn't really even want the job.
> > Microsoft is but a mere mortal where Linux is a god!
Microsoft is an expression of those who want to BE GOD,
Linux may be an expression of God's will.
I'm not going to get into theological debates here. There
is a profound difference in the cultures of both the Microsoft
organization and the Linux organization. To join Microsoft,
you really need the "Microsoft Religion".
By the way, Bill Gates first announced his goal of "world
domination" back in 1984, shortly after he surpassed Lotus
and became the largest software company in the world. Ironically,
he chose the year of George Orwell's book to make this announcement.
He announced at that time, exactly how he would make computers
essential to everyday life, would take control of the communication
infrastructure, and would then take control of the money flow itself.
Microsoft has stuck to this plan, thrown slightly off schedule by
the Internet (which took control away from 1994 to 1996), and by
rejection of Microsoft's standard for cash flow standards (in which
Microsoft held a 25% stake in the company that confirmed signatures).
> > And as we all know, mere mortals die.
And conversations are eternal. Ironically, the prophesies
of Nostradamus and several others seem to end in the early
21st century. One interpretation is that the world destroys
itself. Another is that the events by which history and
prophesies are traditionally experienced (wars, famines,
those seeking world domination, natural disasters,...) would
no longer exist. If we had world peace, sustained economic
growth well distributed across the entire population, with
each being rewarded for the contributions they make, and
with national attention disbursed to issues that can be
resolved - it would be the end of the world (of hate, fear,
revenge, and God wannabes) as we have known it for the last
6000 years.
> > And god's can die too, if they are not loved or needed.
> >
> > But even gods can be forgotten for several hundred years and then
> > be re-discovered and re-incarnated.
> >
> > No mortal has ever come back from the grave though.
> >
> > And by the way, haven't you slept long enough?
> >
> >
> > Charlie
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Truckasaurus
he...@myhouse.com (CAguy) wrote:
(...)
> Don't be so sure...A judge could declare the GPL to be
> invalid allowing companies to build proprientary Linux
> versions...hopelessly fragmenting the Linux community.
>
> It could happen...
So let's say Saddam Hussein declares the GPL to be invalid.
Exactly how will this hurt Linux?
The thing is, if a government declares the GPL (a license) invalid,
it will damage the faith in that government, not the worldwide accepted
licensing system.
Bottom line: Licenses (hereunder GPL) will exist, as long as humans find
property rights convenient.
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Truckasaurus
pac...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <66KS4.2874$714....@news.magma.ca>,
> "ax" <a...@magma.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Without the
> > timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
>
> Sure. This industry is all about change. Change wiped out DEC, sent
> IBM to its knees, and made a monopoly out of a half-assed desktop
> operating systems vendor.
>
> Its time for a change again.
Amen, brother.
But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
money for marketing purposes.
This is the only thing that can inhibit Linux world domination (;-)
As long as MS can put a sticker on Win* boxes, saying
"New and improved!
Faster and more stable than ever!
Widely supprted!
Talking paperclip included!
Get your copy now!"
- consumers will go for it:
Win vs OS/2, Mac,
VHS vs Betamax, 2000,
<insert your own examples here>
Tim Koklas
ax
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:8fg81e$um$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> In 1996, Bill Gates was effectively imposing a "tax", collecting
> a substantial portion of revenue from every PC user. The PC
> had as much impact on trade and commerce in 1996 as ink and paper
> had in 1776. King George taxed ink and paper, and tea. At that
> time, ink and paper were essential to commerce, and tea was an
> occaision for conducting business.
At least Bill Gates was able to impose "tax". How Linux companies
are going to "tax"? Should "free" wonderland be "tax" free as well?
Linux companies are still in painful search of "sound business model".
Red Hat had switched from "software" company to "service" company,
and now it's switching from "service" company to "venture investment"
business. What's next? Wal-Mart? KFC? .....
JEDIDIAH
>Is this an "American Dream"?
>
>No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American pride,
...about as much as Hitler is Germany's pride.
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
>news:391B4597...@mmcable.com...
>>
>> Linux can't go bankrupt.
>>
>> Linux will never be drawn into an anti monopolistic lawsuit with the
>> Federal Government, or any other Government.
>>
>> Linux will never be mis-trusted by the public.
>>
>> Linux will be around when Bill Gates dies.
>>
>> Linux will be around when Microsoft has long been forgotten and copies
>> of
>> NT are in the Smithsonian on display!
>>
>> Linux will most likely outlast several of the worlds governments.
>>
>> While it's name might not continue to be Linux, through the centuries it
>> will travel,
>> it will always be with mankind.
>>
>> Linux is like a statue which has traveled through time.
>>
>> Linux is like the human race - as long as there is love it will be
>> there.
>>
>> In a strange way, Linux is like the pyramids in the respect that it will
>> be
>> with mankind for several centuries.
>>
>> When I went to the Federal Courthouse one time, I had a man explain
>> to me that he works for another man who can only be fired by god.
>>
>> But despite that, a Federal Judge will never be able to do anything
>> about
>> Linux.
>>
>> Linux doesn't require a profit to survive!
>>
>> Linux just needs humans, a small group of humans, to survive.
>>
>> And we are the generation which has witnessed it's birth.
>>
>> And for that I feel privileged.
>>
>> And because Linux has the power of life itself, I really wonder why
>> people
>> still have faith that Microsoft will be with us in 10 years much less
>> 20.
>>
>> Isn't Microsoft a corporation? There are a few corporations which are
>> 100 years old.
>> Don't think the average life span of a computer related corporation is
>> anything to write
>> home about.
>>
>> Microsoft is but a mere mortal where Linux is a god!
>>
>> And as we all know, mere mortals die.
>>
>> And god's can die too, if they are not loved or needed.
>>
>> But even gods can be forgotten for several hundred years and then
>> be re-discovered and re-incarnated.
>>
>> No mortal has ever come back from the grave though.
>>
>> And by the way, haven't you slept long enough?
>>
>>
>> Charlie
>
>
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
JEDIDIAH
>
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:8fg81e$um$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>> a substantial portion of revenue from every PC user. The PC
>> had as much impact on trade and commerce in 1996 as ink and paper
>> had in 1776. King George taxed ink and paper, and tea. At that
>> time, ink and paper were essential to commerce, and tea was an
>> occaision for conducting business.
>
>are going to "tax"? Should "free" wonderland be "tax" free as well?
If you want to blather on about "American Dreams", you need
to acknowledge the basic historical fact that Americans
rather dislike taxes of any kind. So, someone coming up with
a sustainable 'no-tax' system would be really quite admired
by the 'leave us alone so we can rape the peasants' Big
Business pseudo-federalist types.
>
>Linux companies are still in painful search of "sound business model".
>Red Hat had switched from "software" company to "service" company,
>and now it's switching from "service" company to "venture investment"
>business. What's next? Wal-Mart? KFC? .....
So? The whole point of Linux has always been that it doesn't
need to be a business at all in order to be sustainable.
Clifford W. Racz
About the posting:
>Amen, brother.
>
>But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
>consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
about fast food, and disposable diapers. Even the piss-poor product that a
consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
It's like this (maybe sad, but true):
IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
Tim Kelley
>
> In article <66KS4.2874$714....@news.magma.ca>,
> "ax" <a...@magma.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Without the
> > timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
>
> Sure. This industry is all about change. Change wiped out DEC, sent
> IBM to its knees, and made a monopoly out of a half-assed desktop
> operating systems vendor.
>
> Its time for a change again.
IBM on its knees? Well, it's a nice thought.
IBM stil makes MS look small.
--
Tim Kelley
tpke...@winkinc.com
kel...@mindspring.com
sierra...@yahoo.com
> Always been ??
>
> Linux is only 10 years old and only came out of the geek closet three
> years ago.
>
> I have T shirts older then that.
>
> Sam.
Besides showing your lack of wardrobe, what the hell does this post
accomplish? So it's only ten years old, how does this disprove the claim that
it always has been....? In otherwords, your post is a strawman.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
Tim Kelley
>
> About the posting:
>
> >Amen, brother.
> >
> >But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
> >consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
>
> This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
> about fast food, and disposable diapers. Even the piss-poor product that a
> consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
> is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
> will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
It is about marketing, and unfortunately, advertising is rapidly
becoming the only protected form of speech, in the hands of those
with money. Word of mouth is linux's only marketing tool, but
the net gives you a lot of power in that area. The jury's not
out yet.
> It's like this (maybe sad, but true):
> IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
Look, linux is making progress in this area. Also, I don't
consider an OS that has to be periodically reinstalled from
scratch to be "easy to use", no matter how easy it is when one
first plugs it in. Windows' "easy to use" factor is only
warrantied for the first month or until anything is installed by
the end user. After that it's more difficult than linux. And
it's the "hair pulling - teeth gnashing - sanity depriving I'd
rather kill myself than go through this AGAIN" sort of
difficult, as opposed to the "I don't know how to accomplish
this, aw fuck I have to read the docs" sort of difficult.
sierra...@yahoo.com
> This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
Rubbish, it is about marketting. IBM didn't sell its mainframes over
the others because their's were better, but because they had a better
sales department, that and the fact that they were already selling business
machines and they made their mainframes compatible with these pre-existing
machine, ergo selling an inferior product to the masses.
When IBM came out with their PC, they did the same thing over again.
MS does the same. It is marketting.
Part of the MS marketting has it the Linux is too hard for the simple
user, whereas Windows can be used by anyone. People buy in to it. That and
the fact that it is almost impossible to buy a Intel compatible computer
without MS Windows on it, means that most people end up using MS Windows.
Marketting, not product.
Tim Kelley
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:8fg81e$um$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > a substantial portion of revenue from every PC user. The PC
> > had as much impact on trade and commerce in 1996 as ink and paper
> > had in 1776. King George taxed ink and paper, and tea. At that
> > time, ink and paper were essential to commerce, and tea was an
> > occaision for conducting business.
>
> are going to "tax"? Should "free" wonderland be "tax" free as well?
>
> Red Hat had switched from "software" company to "service" company,
> and now it's switching from "service" company to "venture investment"
> business. What's next? Wal-Mart? KFC? .....
I mostly agree. But this depends on your notion of a "sound
business model".
The world doesn't need any more Bill Gates'. There is no
morallly justifiable reason for any software company (or any
other company for that matter) to build empires, and indeed I
doubt seriously that anyone will be able to do this with linux.
You can't build an empire on service.
So I can't be a multi-billionaire selling a product I can't
legally own. Wah wah wah.
Good riddance.
JEDIDIAH
>On Fri, 12 May 2000 15:30:49 GMT, jedi...@dementia.mishnet (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 May 2000 13:29:48 GMT, ax <a...@magma.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote in message
>>>news:8fg81e$um$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>>
>>>> a substantial portion of revenue from every PC user. The PC
>>>> had as much impact on trade and commerce in 1996 as ink and paper
>>>> had in 1776. King George taxed ink and paper, and tea. At that
>>>> time, ink and paper were essential to commerce, and tea was an
>>>> occaision for conducting business.
>>>
>>>are going to "tax"? Should "free" wonderland be "tax" free as well?
>>
>> to acknowledge the basic historical fact that Americans
>> rather dislike taxes of any kind. So, someone coming up with
>> a sustainable 'no-tax' system would be really quite admired
>> by the 'leave us alone so we can rape the peasants' Big
>> Business pseudo-federalist types.
>
>It went out of fashion 5000 years ago to a system called civilisation.
I'm sure the Amish would get a good chuckle out of this.
>
>>>Linux companies are still in painful search of "sound business model".
>>>Red Hat had switched from "software" company to "service" company,
>>>and now it's switching from "service" company to "venture investment"
>>>business. What's next? Wal-Mart? KFC? .....
>>
>> So? The whole point of Linux has always been that it doesn't
>> need to be a business at all in order to be sustainable.
>
>Always been ??
Some of us didn't arrive just yesterday.
[deletia]
JEDIDIAH
>On Fri, 12 May 2000 10:54:19 -0500, "Clifford W. Racz"
><cli...@plsv1.physics.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>About the posting:
>>
>>>Amen, brother.
>>>
>>>But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
>>>consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
>>
>>
>>consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
>>is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
>>will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
>>
>>IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
>
>
>Windows is the product most people use by the historical fact that it
>was the right product at the right time. (the Mac blew it)
>
>Linux has to be easier and better to displace Windows on the desktop
>
>Which it is not.
...depends on the situation.
It can be very much that: better and easier than Windows.
It can also be cheaply placed in the background so the
end user doesn't have to even see it, or care.
What makes you think that us Unix users WANT to do MORE
work than we have to?
JEDIDIAH
>pac...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <66KS4.2874$714....@news.magma.ca>,
>> "ax" <a...@magma.ca> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Without the
>> > timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
>>
>> Sure. This industry is all about change. Change wiped out DEC, sent
>> IBM to its knees, and made a monopoly out of a half-assed desktop
>> operating systems vendor.
>>
>> Its time for a change again.
>
>IBM on its knees? Well, it's a nice thought.
>
>IBM stil makes MS look small.
They have more meaningful patents too. <snicker>
abraxas
> About the posting:
>>Amen, brother.
>>
>>But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
>>consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
> This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
> about fast food, and disposable diapers. Even the piss-poor product that a
> consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
> is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
> will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
Wrong.
> It's like this (maybe sad, but true):
> IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
Yes, this was certianly true for NeXTStep/OpenStep, eh?
-----yttrx
abraxas
> Yer right, we are going to be using Linux in 40-50 years!
> Compare the Computers of 50 years ago to now, then extrapolate the
> increasing rate of change, then tell me we will be using Linux, Liar.
Spoken truly as someone who doesnt understand computer history. The
same argument was used decades ago when it was decided to use double
digit dates..."oh come on...in 30 years we wont be using this stuff
anymore, they will have fixed it by THEN; just extrapolate the current
rate of change!".
Now that its clear that you do not understand what youre saying,
stop saying it at once.
-----yttrx
Paul E. Larson
>pac...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <66KS4.2874$714....@news.magma.ca>,
>> "ax" <a...@magma.ca> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Without the
>> > timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
>>
>> Sure. This industry is all about change. Change wiped out DEC, sent
>> IBM to its knees, and made a monopoly out of a half-assed desktop
>> operating systems vendor.
>>
>> Its time for a change again.
>
>IBM on its knees? Well, it's a nice thought.
>
Well the PC division was sent to its knees. Partly from IBM's mistakes and
partly from personnel losses.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane Museum
JEDIDIAH
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Sam <sr145@h_o_tmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yer right, we are going to be using Linux in 40-50 years!
>
>> Compare the Computers of 50 years ago to now, then extrapolate the
>> increasing rate of change, then tell me we will be using Linux, Liar.
>
>Spoken truly as someone who doesnt understand computer history. The
>same argument was used decades ago when it was decided to use double
>digit dates..."oh come on...in 30 years we wont be using this stuff
...except (assuming that this is the 'itime problem') that
we're talking a fully specified actual storage specification
versus an abstract one which just happens to break on SOME
of 'this years' hardware.
>anymore, they will have fixed it by THEN; just extrapolate the current
>rate of change!".
>
>Now that its clear that you do not understand what youre saying,
>stop saying it at once.
No, you're the one that doesn't understand the situation.
abraxas
> On 12 May 2000 16:46:20 GMT, abraxas <yt...@mutilation.net> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Sam <sr145@h_o_tmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yer right, we are going to be using Linux in 40-50 years!
>>
>>> Compare the Computers of 50 years ago to now, then extrapolate the
>>> increasing rate of change, then tell me we will be using Linux, Liar.
>>
>>Spoken truly as someone who doesnt understand computer history. The
>>same argument was used decades ago when it was decided to use double
>>digit dates..."oh come on...in 30 years we wont be using this stuff
> ...except (assuming that this is the 'itime problem') that
> we're talking a fully specified actual storage specification
> versus an abstract one which just happens to break on SOME
> of 'this years' hardware.
Youve missed the point.
>>anymore, they will have fixed it by THEN; just extrapolate the current
>>rate of change!".
>>
>>Now that its clear that you do not understand what youre saying,
>>stop saying it at once.
> No, you're the one that doesn't understand the situation.
Oh really now? Why dont you explain it to me, jed, and be sure to
use very small words so that I understand.
And this time, see if you can do it without making any sweeping and
entirely invalid statements about linux.
-----yttrx
Red Hat
>
>
> Linux doesn't require a profit to survive!
>
Linux isn't required to profit. Linux doesn't require to survive.
> Linux just needs humans, a small group of humans, to survive.
>
...and somebody to feed them.
Thank you,
Red.
Dave Sneddon
> Is this an "American Dream"?
>
> No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American pride,
> but Linus is not.
That's because Linus is from Finland, and is a national celebrity there.
Dave Sneddon
> About the posting:
>
> >Amen, brother.
> >
> >But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
> >consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
>
> This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
> about fast food, and disposable diapers. Even the piss-poor product that a
> consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
> is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
> will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
>
> It's like this (maybe sad, but true):
> IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
Exactly, so long as Mandrake do it instead of Corel.
Dave Sneddon
Isn't this the standard US large corporation ratio. Maybe GNU isn't so
different after all.
Francis Van Aeken
> But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
> consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
<snip>
> - consumers will go for it:
> Win vs OS/2, Mac,
So, Apple lost because their marketing wasn't right?
Or was there just too much of it? Too much mindless
hype? (Hey, that reminds me of this new OS everybody
is talking about ;-)
Francis.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:391c...@news.terra.com.br...
Apple wasn't and isn't competing against just IBM or just Microsoft.
They're competing against hundreds or thousands of computer vendors, each
with their own advertising budgets.
bob@nospam
>
>With the current decline in tech stocks corporate money may stop going
>into Linux as no-one has found a "sound business model"
>
>100 geeks coding Linux do not make a profitable endeavour.
let me give you a simple example.
Someone finds a cure for cancer, this cure however requires sea water
to make it. obviuosly, no company will get into building this cure,
since there no money to be made, after all, it is sea water, which
is free and everywhere.
The fact that almost no company will get into the business of making
this cancer medicine, it does not mean that some volunteers will do,
and that at the end, many millions will benifit from it.
There are somethings in life that can be more important than just making
huge profits. May be the computer industry needs to start to learn to
live with less profits, and concetrate in making things that are
really usefull for the people of the world.
Bloody Viking
: Linux can't go bankrupt.
: Linux will never be drawn into an anti monopolistic lawsuit with the
: Federal Government, or any other Government.
: Linux will never be mis-trusted by the public.
: Linux will be around when Bill Gates dies.
: Linux will be around when Microsoft has long been forgotten and copies
: of
: NT are in the Smithsonian on display!
: Linux will most likely outlast several of the worlds governments.
: While it's name might not continue to be Linux, through the centuries it
: will travel,
: it will always be with mankind.
: Linux is like a statue which has traveled through time.
: Linux is like the human race - as long as there is love it will be
: there.
: In a strange way, Linux is like the pyramids in the respect that it will
: be
: with mankind for several centuries.
I found the above funny. One thing computer-wise that Linux can't do to my
knowledge is config a mouse driver for lefty operation. I could be wrong.
If I'm wrong, it's no problem as I leave the mouse config alone and leave
it righty while I use it lefty. I do it that way for righty-compliance. I
would sooner add a toggle switch to a mouse than fuck with a mouse driver
config.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Full Name
>
>OK, I can play this game.
>
>Let me give you a better example.
>
>Lets say the "Cancer cure" is sticking a Pineapple up your arse,
>painful but effective, This would be the Linux version, cost minimal.
>
>Lets say someone (MS) develops a different cure, and charges you $100
>for a Pineapple fruit juice in a convenient go anywhere pack with a
>drinking straw.
>
>Which would you choose ?
>
>Sam
>
>
LOL!!
We decided to put Linux on a Dell notebook about a month ago. It's
still not networked. The local Linux experts have ordered another
PCMCIA net card for it. The funny thing is that the supplied card was
specifically chosen to be Linux friendly.
I must admit, when I see them hunched over the notebook typing away at
the keyboard trying to get the thing work they do have expressions on
their faces like they have pineapples up their arses.
Full Name
wrote:
>> Linux just needs humans, a small group of humans, to survive.
>>
>...and somebody to feed them.
>
As long as there is a social security system Linux will survive.
Charlie Ebert
IT's part of XFCONFIG and yes lefties are welcome.
Charlie
sierra...@yahoo.com
> OK, I can play this game.
>
> Let me give you a better example.
>
> Lets say the "Cancer cure" is sticking a Pineapple up your arse,
> painful but effective, This would be the Linux version, cost minimal.
>
> Lets say someone (MS) develops a different cure, and charges you $100
> for a Pineapple fruit juice in a convenient go anywhere pack with a
> drinking straw.
>
> Which would you choose ?
No, for this example to be correct, the Pineapple fruit juice version
would have the rather frequent result of diereha, forcing the patient to need
to reinject the juice. It would have bad side effects, the lack of fiber in
the juice would be bad for you compared to the full fruit version. Etc.
Julius Apweiler
>
> Is this an "American Dream"?
>
> No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American pride,
> but Linus is not.
I wouldn't be proud of Bill Gates. All he ever was good at was deceiving
(or, to put it that way, screwing) people and making money from that. He
ripped off IBM by forcing them to use his MS-DOS while he kept the
copyright for himself, so that he was able to licence it to others. He
actually copied DOS from someone else beforehand.
--------------------
Julius Dominik Apweiler
----
Owner of Julius' Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/ ,
----
Inventor of the Creatures Christmas Calendar:
http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/calendar
----
E-Mail: apwe...@pt.lu or Julius....@gmx.net
----
ICQ: 21129422 , no authorization required.
----
Sent from SuSE Linux 6.3
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and
Gates?"
Julius Apweiler
>
> About the posting:
>
> >Amen, brother.
> >
> >consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
>
> about fast food, and disposable diapers. Even the piss-poor product that a
> consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
> is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
> will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
>
> It's like this (maybe sad, but true):
> IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
true. It still has a long way to go, but we're getting there.
ax
"Bloody Viking" <nos...@masu.wwa.com> wrote in message
news:Q%5T4.8830$ZE4.1...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
>
>
> I found the above funny. One thing computer-wise that Linux can't do to my
> knowledge is config a mouse driver for lefty operation. I could be wrong.
> If I'm wrong, it's no problem as I leave the mouse config alone and leave
> it righty while I use it lefty. I do it that way for righty-compliance. I
> would sooner add a toggle switch to a mouse than fuck with a mouse driver
> config.
>
Linux is copy-LEFTed and everything will follow to the "LEFT" slowly but
surely,
including your mouse (I suppose).
COPY-LEFT means COPY-is-RIGHT. COPY-RIGHT means COPY-isn't-RIGHT.
Confusing?
John S. Dyson
> ax wrote:
>
> > Is this an "American Dream"?
> >
> > No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American pride,
> > but Linus is not.
>
> That's because Linus is from Finland, and is a national celebrity there.
I some circles (but certainly not mine), Bill Gates is well liked. However,
this
is from mostly those who have made LOTS of money from Microsoft. I don't
think that there is anything "American" about Bill Gates, except for his ability
to become successful. The way that he has used his success (and some of
his methods) are certainly not "American."
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
| and it irritates the pig.
John S. Dyson
then Linux will survive." Much of the Linux success is on the back
of foolish investors, funding the day-to-day operations. Only
certain niche operations have really made any big bucks on GPV
code, and it is interesting to see how Red Hat is feverishly trying to
find a working business model.
Leslie Mikesell
Sam <sr145@h_o_tmail.com> wrote:
>
>Lets say the "Cancer cure" is sticking a Pineapple up your arse,
>painful but effective, This would be the Linux version, cost minimal.
>
>Lets say someone (MS) develops a different cure, and charges you $100
>for a Pineapple fruit juice in a convenient go anywhere pack with a
>drinking straw.
>
>Which would you choose ?
>
For something important like that I would choose the one that I trust
to work. I would stay away from a company that had caused a lot
of problems in my experience no matter how slickly packaged
heavily promoted their version of the same thing might be.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
JEDIDIAH
>On Fri, 12 May 2000 16:08:59 GMT, sierra...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Sam <sr145@h_o_tmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Always been ??
>>>
>>> Linux is only 10 years old and only came out of the geek closet three
>>> years ago.
>>>
>>> I have T shirts older then that.
>>>
>>> Sam.
>>
>>
>> Besides showing your lack of wardrobe, what the hell does this post
>>accomplish? So it's only ten years old, how does this disprove the claim that
>>it always has been....? In otherwords, your post is a strawman.
>
>Do I have to explain it ?
>
>The original poster said
>
>"The whole point of Linux has always been that it doesn't need to be
>a business at all in order to be sustainable"
>
>My point, is that it is not yet clear that it is sustainable (in the
>big picture sense) and it's history is too short to prove anything.
You have no conception whatsoever of the 'big picture'. Your
view of things is limited and myopic at best. GNU has already
proven itself as sustainable even without considering the recent
Linux hype.
>
>With the current decline in tech stocks corporate money may stop going
>into Linux as no-one has found a "sound business model"
>
>100 geeks coding Linux do not make a profitable endeavour.
That's not the point. Never has been.
If you think it is then you demonstrate just how little you understand.
JEDIDIAH
>On Sat, 13 May 2000 18:51:33 +1000, Sam <sr145@h_o_tmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Let me give you a better example.
>>
>>painful but effective, This would be the Linux version, cost minimal.
>>
>>Lets say someone (MS) develops a different cure, and charges you $100
>>for a Pineapple fruit juice in a convenient go anywhere pack with a
>>drinking straw.
>>
>>Which would you choose ?
>>
>>
>>
>
>LOL!!
>
>We decided to put Linux on a Dell notebook about a month ago. It's
>still not networked. The local Linux experts have ordered another
>PCMCIA net card for it. The funny thing is that the supplied card was
>specifically chosen to be Linux friendly.
So? I tried the first card that stated on the box that it
had Linux support. It works like a charm.
My anecodote nullfies your anecdote.
[deletia]
This was on a 486 Thinkpad btw.
JEDIDIAH
>On Sat, 13 May 2000 15:23:34 +0200, Julius Apweiler <apwe...@pt.lu>
>wrote:
>
>>ax wrote:
>>>
>>> Is this an "American Dream"?
>>
>>>
>>> but Linus is not.
>
>>(or, to put it that way, screwing) people and making money from that.
>
Mebbe he hasn't had an Oracle database coredump on him lately...
[deletia]
Charlie Ebert
Bill Gates is our American Pride? Buddy? Are you just flat nuts or
what?
Bill Gates ain't nobody's pride!
Geeze
Charlie
Charlie Ebert
When I was writing software for HBOC, I felt I was doing something great
for the
company. I was comming up with new packages, helping them go into new
markets
with new ideas.
Then I saw their profit board and realized that their profits were 80%
from support
and maintainance contracts and very little of the top line came from my
writing code.
They would GIVE away my work in order to get the more lucrative
maintenance contract
as the medical software industry is a continually changing thing.
So Linux will survive and the GPL is sound.
Microsoft does the reverse of this, or course.
Charlie
sierra...@yahoo.com
> >On Fri, 12 May 2000 16:08:59 GMT, sierra...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >>Sam <sr145@h_o_tmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Always been ??
> >>>
> >>> Linux is only 10 years old and only came out of the geek closet three
> >>> years ago.
> >>>
> >>> I have T shirts older then that.
> >>>
> >>> Sam.
> >>
> >>
> >> Besides showing your lack of wardrobe, what the hell does this post
> >>accomplish? So it's only ten years old, how does this disprove the claim that
> >>it always has been....? In otherwords, your post is a strawman.
> >
> >Do I have to explain it ?
> >
> >The original poster said
No moron. THe original poster said, that Linux as ALWAYS BEEN...
Your response, which is shown above was the lame, "I have t-shirts older
than that." What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
Colin R. Day
>
> No. Microsoft is merely an expression of another very old
> conversation. Since Alexander the Great, the possibility of
> world domination has become the obsession of remarkable men
> such as Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, Hitler,
> Stalin, and now Gates.
>
> Each used the best technology of his day. They combined
> effective control of information, effective combat strategies,
> and effective technology to leverage an advantage over
> any opposition. They accomplished something great initially
> and were soon surrounded by those obsessed with power, who
> forced the abuse of power.
>
> Alexandar used the Phalanx, the Ceasars used circuses, crucifixion,
> and the Roman Legion, Napoleon managed logistics and supply lines,
> Hitler exploited airplanes, tanks, propaganda, intelligence gathering,
> and the Houlocaust.
>
> Bill Gates is a bit more sophisticated. A more benevolent dictator.
> His tactics included gathering of information through access to
> people's private storage, one-sided contracts,
> all or nothing terms, contracts designed to exclude competitors,
> and nondisclosure agreements, along with hostile takeovers and
> acceptance of royalty payments in equity.
>
> > > There are a few corporations which are 100 years old.
>
> Actually, this conversation is probably as old as mankind.
> Before Rameses, there was probably some Neanderthal committed
> to world domination (all 500 people). It's the desire to BE GOD!
>
> On the other hand, each participant was destroyed in their prime.
> Hannable showed up with Elephants and wiped out Alexander.
Hannibal used in elephants against Rome in 217 BC, whereas Alexander
died in 323 BC.
> Ghengis
> Khan showed up with armored riders on horseback and nearly sacked
> Rome.
Ghengis Khan was born centuries after the fall of Rome.
>
> --
> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> I/T Architect, MIS Director
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 1%/week!
Colin Day
Full Name
wrote:
>
> Mebbe he hasn't had an Oracle database coredump on him lately...
>
You clearly have no experience with Oracle.
Stephen S. Edwards II
news:391E17B5...@mmcable.com...
> Evan DiBiase wrote:
> > "Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> > news:391DD33D...@mmcable.com...
> >
> > > And in the WORKING catagory, Microsoft lacks.
> >
> > This is the second time you've claimed this. This computer is certainly
> > "working," and it's running Windows 2000. How is it "lacking?"
> >
> > -Evan
>
> Oh extremely simple.
>
> When I worked for HBOC it was a blue screening mess.
>
> When I quit HBOC to work for several life insurance concerns
> it was still a blue screening mess.
*sigh* When are you Linvocates going to learn? You cannot
enter anecdotal evidence as proof to a claim. How the hell
do we know that you're not just contriving this stuff in
order to look like you're a techie, when you really just
work for the postal service, or something to that effect?
> Microsoft products simply can't handle a LOAD!
I see. Well, according to NetCraft.com:
Microsoft-IIS is also being used by Compaq, Nasdaq, and The National
Football League.
Windows 2000 users include Microsoft, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Hotbot,
BigCharts, and Dell.
Now, I suppose you're going to give a conspiracy theory
entailing that Windows 2000/IIS is used _ONLY_ because
Microsoft is forcing these companies to do so?
> What really gets me sick is to see somebody who uses their NT box
> as some telnet device or web browser, a light load, then proclaims
> triumphantly that NT is working.
What really gets me sick, is to see somebody who is so
incredibly blinded by zeal for a product, that they
have absolutely no idea how a different idea could
possibly work, and in some cases, work better than
their idea.
> Well, W2K ain't working either as it seemingly can't even handle
> the simple job of running LAME terminal emulation software.
More anecdotal nonsense. Or, perhaps I should simply
write you off as clueless, since you cannot get Windows
2000 to work correctly. After all, that seems to be
the UNIX elitist way of doing things. Consider me
an "NT elitist", if that's the way you wanna play.
> I've been a computer programmer for very close to 20 years now.
Ah, here we go. "Experience pissing contests" are so
overdone in these groups. Please, give this crap a rest.
> I used to be a BIG microsoft supporter.
What this tells me, is that you used to be a zealot
for the other side, with no rationale for it. This
dents your credibility more than anything else you've
spewed into this newsgroup.
I used to be a BIG Linux supporter. Of course, it
was all out of blind zeal, and an unhealthy compulsion
to feel bigger by laughing at the less-learned. Now,
I dislike Linux, soley based on some of the poor
experiences I've had with it, but I rarely insult the
product for its very being... I save my insults for
loonies who push Linux like is the second coming of
Christ.
> I know what the hell I'm talking about.
I know what the hell I'm talking about. How does
this statement prove anything for either of us.
HINT: It doesn't.
> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
I'll jump in here. All me to whip it out, in order
to commence with the DickSizeWar(tm):
I started on computers when I was seven. I was writing
complex programs in BASIC, and assembly when I was
nine. I've been building PCs from scratch since I
was 16. I've been creating high-end computer graphics
since I was 18.
What does this prove? Absolutely nothing. So why
even bother asking? Please don't. It's just a waste
of time.
> Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
Linux is a whimp ass operating system at best.
BeOS is a whimp ass operating system at best.
UNICOS is a whimp ass operating system at best.
IRIX is a whimp ass operating system at best.
You see... all of those above statements are just as
trite and meaningless as yours was.
> It's a bunch of borrowed ideas which have been sewed together over
> the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
> it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Apple stole the GUI from South Park? Gee, I thought South Park
wasn't around until about '96... was I wrong?
First of all, try knowing what you're talking about before
you open your mouth. You'll look less idiotic. What you're
referring to is "Xerox PARC", which was Xerox's research
facility. Of course, Xerox also incarnated two other very
significant inventions. I leave it to you to figure out
just what those things were. Think of it as an attempt to
give you a brain cell.
Tell me, shall we chastise UNIX for "taking" ethernet? How
about bitching about UNIX for taking "object-oriented
programming"?
> The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
Microsoft didn't take DOS from CP/M. Seattle Computer Products
did. Microsoft simply purchased it from them, for IBM.
> And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
That's right. They did, however, get Windows 3 to work relatively
well under a heavy load, a cobbled-together as it was.
But Windows v3 still sucked planetoids through garden hoses.
> In every job which has involved Microsoft products, EVERY COMMERCIAL
> SOFTWARE MANUAL I've had to write to support MY software, I've HAD
> to
> put in a paragraph explaining why it's a good idea to turn your servers
> around every work day and to turn your desktops around every 3-4 days.
> Because if you use Microsoft OS's for anything SERIOUS, you'll have to.
>
> YOU'LL HAVE TO OR IT WILL BLUE SCREEN.
If this is your conclusion, then I can only merely conclude that
you have no business administering a WindowsNT network.
> That's why I appreciate Linux now.
> Linux is a continuation of ONE concept. They aren't trying to re-invent
> the world and then HOPE it works.
Yeah, and the Linux developers have no liability either, so they
have no pressure whatsoever. Give us a break. This is not the
same thing.
> They don't have the manpower nor technical knowledge to accomplish their
> OS goals and I'm using 95, 98, NT and W2K as support for that argument!
>
> If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
> OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
More malarchy.
> We have another company who's had some Linux boxes in continuous
> scientific
> research now for 1 year and 4 months running. I've got some other
> business
> contacts who've had Linux servers up for almost 3 years running.
>
> I have been recognized in several magazines for my efforts in converting
> software for the life insurance companies of America and I'm on the
> front
> cover of one of America's most popular compilers.
Ah. Proof please. And if you do not provide it in your
next answer, then I will know for a fact that you are
a lying. You opened the bid... it's time to put up, or
shut up.
> Unless you've written software and have some expertise in the OS's you
> work
> with, you have positively NO business giving out recommendations to
> inferior products.
Ah. UNIX-looney arrogance. I love it. You make me laugh.
[snipped rest of Charlie's crap]
> And that's the way I will leave it.
So, I take this to mean that you are going to yellow-belly
your way out of posting proof to your previous claims?
As far as I'm concerned, you are a liar, and you are a twit.
I honestly think you'd make a much more fun punching bag than
Matt Templeton anyway.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| rakm...@primenet.com | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
Mats Pettersson
Sam <sr145@h_o_tmail.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:4i5qhs8gns9r0pbdd...@4ax.com...
> OK, I can play this game.
>
> Let me give you a better example.
>
> Lets say the "Cancer cure" is sticking a Pineapple up your arse,
> painful but effective, This would be the Linux version, cost minimal.
>
> Lets say someone (MS) develops a different cure, and charges you $100
> for a Pineapple fruit juice in a convenient go anywhere pack with a
> drinking straw.
>
> Which would you choose ?
I wouldn't drink from that straw. It would probably get you a "I love you"
virus. By the way, i think Bill would love that pineapple up his arse, even
if it costs him a $100.
Charlie Ebert
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> news:391DD33D...@mmcable.com...
>
> > And in the WORKING catagory, Microsoft lacks.
>
> This is the second time you've claimed this. This computer is certainly
> "working," and it's running Windows 2000. How is it "lacking?"
>
> -Evan
Oh extremely simple.
When I worked for HBOC it was a blue screening mess.
When I quit HBOC to work for several life insurance concerns
it was still a blue screening mess.
Microsoft products simply can't handle a LOAD!
What really gets me sick is to see somebody who uses their NT box
as some telnet device or web browser, a light load, then proclaims
triumphantly that NT is working.
Well, W2K ain't working either as it seemingly can't even handle
the simple job of running LAME terminal emulation software.
I've been a computer programmer for very close to 20 years now.
I used to be a BIG microsoft supporter.
I know what the hell I'm talking about.
Now I'd like to read some about your background?
Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
It's a bunch of borrowed ideas which have been sewed together over
the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
In every job which has involved Microsoft products, EVERY COMMERCIAL
SOFTWARE MANUAL I've had to write to support MY software, I've HAD
to
put in a paragraph explaining why it's a good idea to turn your servers
around every work day and to turn your desktops around every 3-4 days.
Because if you use Microsoft OS's for anything SERIOUS, you'll have to.
YOU'LL HAVE TO OR IT WILL BLUE SCREEN.
That's why I appreciate Linux now.
Linux is a continuation of ONE concept. They aren't trying to re-invent
the
world and then HOPE it works.
They don't have the manpower nor technical knowledge to accomplish their
OS goals and I'm using 95, 98, NT and W2K as support for that argument!
If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
We have another company who's had some Linux boxes in continuous
scientific
research now for 1 year and 4 months running. I've got some other
business
contacts who've had Linux servers up for almost 3 years running.
I have been recognized in several magazines for my efforts in converting
software for the life insurance companies of America and I'm on the
front
cover of one of America's most popular compilers.
Unless you've written software and have some expertise in the OS's you
work
with, you have positively NO business giving out recommendations to
inferior products.
And let me just add this. If Microsoft had it's head pulled out of it's
butt,
the world would NOT have had to endure this ILOVEYOU VB script.
This is YET another example of why I say Microsoft was NEVER ready for
prime time.
Why do I work with it? People pay me! Go figure!
And they still want me to work with it! Go figure!
And YES, they know I write to newsgroups. They tell me so! Go figure!
People think Microsoft is the only way to empower them at the office.
That's the real reason Microsoft is alive today. But that's the ONLY
reason
they are alive today. It isn't because of programming excellence.
And that's the way I will leave it.
Charlie
ax
>
> Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
>
> It's a bunch of borrowed ideas which have been sewed together over
> the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
> it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
> The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
Linux borrowed and stole more.
> If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
> OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
>
Don't naturally assume Linux OS never crashes on others
if it hasn't crashed on you. There is no bug free OS.
>
> This is YET another example of why I say Microsoft was NEVER ready for
> prime time.
>
Microsoft already had its prime time.
> Charlie
ax
>
> When I was writing software for HBOC, I felt I was doing something great
> for the
> company. I was comming up with new packages, helping them go into new
> markets
> with new ideas.
>
> Then I saw their profit board and realized that their profits were 80%
> from support
> and maintainance contracts and very little of the top line came from my
> writing code.
>
> They would GIVE away my work in order to get the more lucrative
> maintenance contract
> as the medical software industry is a continually changing thing.
>
> So Linux will survive and the GPL is sound.
Watch how the stock market justifies the soundness of GPL.
Have fun !
abraxas
> *sigh* When are you Linvocates going to learn? You cannot
> enter anecdotal evidence as proof to a claim. How the hell
> do we know that you're not just contriving this stuff in
> order to look like you're a techie, when you really just
> work for the postal service, or something to that effect?
I actually got a bluescreen under my W2K install last night when
I tried (uneffectively) to start a winamp plug-in.
I cut the power halfway through the 512 meg memory dump, booted
into linux and I shall never, ever look back. I needed an excuse
to never have a surprise shutdown ever again. My next reboot
will be right after I compile a stable 2.4 kernel to handle a
USB mouse.
>> Microsoft products simply can't handle a LOAD!
> I see. Well, according to NetCraft.com:
> Microsoft-IIS is also being used by Compaq, Nasdaq, and The National
> Football League.
I happen to know that the NFL will be using something else very,
very soon. (ok, so its not linux, but its not windows either. :))
-----yttrx
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote on 14 May 2000 06:19:49 GMT <8flgi5$ch9$1...@news.enteract.com>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <tg...@cyclic.aux.net> wrote:
>
>> enter anecdotal evidence as proof to a claim. How the hell
>> do we know that you're not just contriving this stuff in
>> order to look like you're a techie, when you really just
>> work for the postal service, or something to that effect?
>
>I tried (uneffectively) to start a winamp plug-in.
>
>I cut the power halfway through the 512 meg memory dump, booted
>into linux and I shall never, ever look back. I needed an excuse
>to never have a surprise shutdown ever again. My next reboot
>will be right after I compile a stable 2.4 kernel to handle a
>USB mouse.
>
>
>> I see. Well, according to NetCraft.com:
>
>> Microsoft-IIS is also being used by Compaq, Nasdaq, and The National
>> Football League.
>
>very soon. (ok, so its not linux, but its not windows either. :))
Not yet.
bash$ telnet www.nfl.com www
Trying 204.202.130.220...
Connected to www.nfl.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
Connection closed by foreign host.
?
bash$ telnet www.nfl.com www
Trying 204.202.130.220...
Connected to www.nfl.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.1
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 11:17:58 GMT
Connection: close
Set-Cookie: SWID=E7DA5BAF-2987-11D4-9BCA-009027302310; path=/;
expires=Sun, 14-May-2020 11:17:58 GMT; domain=.nfl.com;
Content-Length: 407
Content-Type: text/html
Connection closed by foreign host.
Of course, it's possible that www.nfl.com may be switching to
a DNS rotator type of system (somewhat like www.cnn.com), and that
some systems on that rotator may be using one OS/webserver
combination, and others using some other OS/webserver.
But along that way may lie madness.
Personally, I wish www.nfl.com well, whatever they use. :-)
>
>-----yttrx
>
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- "Maintenance nightmare? What maintenance nightmare?" :-)
Evan DiBiase
few of my comments, anyway.
"Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
news:391E17B5...@mmcable.com...
> Evan DiBiase wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> > news:391DD33D...@mmcable.com...
> >
> > > And in the WORKING catagory, Microsoft lacks.
> >
> > This is the second time you've claimed this. This computer is certainly
> > "working," and it's running Windows 2000. How is it "lacking?"
>
> When I worked for HBOC it was a blue screening mess.
I haven't had a blue screen yet, and people I've talked to say the same.
> Microsoft products simply can't handle a LOAD!
>
> What really gets me sick is to see somebody who uses their NT box
> as some telnet device or web browser, a light load, then proclaims
> triumphantly that NT is working.
Well, it's working _for me_. You seem to imply that "working" is running
slashdot.org or microsoft.com. For me, working _is_ browsing the web, using
ICQ, using Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, and everything else a typical "home
user" does. I also use Visual C++.
In short, I don't know why this would make you sick. It's working for me, so
why can't I proclaim that NT is working?
> Well, W2K ain't working either as it seemingly can't even handle
> the simple job of running LAME terminal emulation software.
Huh? Is there a specific sort of "LAME terminal emulation software" you'd
like me to try for you? Or are you just making wild statements without
anything to back them up?
> I've been a computer programmer for very close to 20 years now.
Excellent. I've been a computer programmer for very close to 2 years now. So
what?
> I used to be a BIG microsoft supporter.
Like Stephen pointed out, this sounds like you were as much of a Microsoft
mindless zealot as a Linux mindless zealot.
> I know what the hell I'm talking about.
Do you?
> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers since
I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What more
do you want?
> Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
Oh, yes, this really tells us a lot...
> It's a bunch of borrowed ideas which have been sewed together over
> the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
> it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
> The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
Even ignoring the "south park"/PARC confusion and the fact that they didn't
create DOS, I say: What's wrong with borrowing ideas? Linux wouldn't be the
operating system you know and will defend to the death if Linus hadn't tried
to copy, well, everything from UNIX. "Selective borrowing" is a good thing.
If Microsoft sees that multitasking is a good thing, why shouldn't they add
it? You'd probably be complaining that Windows has no multitasking if
Microsoft took your "advice" and decided to think of ideas on its own.
> And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
Uh, that's a great assertion. Do you have any proof? Stephen Edwards pointed
to several high load, high profile web sites that are running IIS and
Windows 2000/NT. Are they merely imaginary?
> In every job which has involved Microsoft products, EVERY COMMERCIAL
> SOFTWARE MANUAL I've had to write to support MY software, I've HAD
> to
> put in a paragraph explaining why it's a good idea to turn your servers
> around every work day and to turn your desktops around every 3-4 days.
> Because if you use Microsoft OS's for anything SERIOUS, you'll have to.
Define "SERIOUS." I would consider the work I do on this computer to be
"SERIOUS," and I don't need to reboot every 3-4 days.
> YOU'LL HAVE TO OR IT WILL BLUE SCREEN.
I haven't gotten ANY BLUE SCREENS! Will you please at least make an attempt
to back up your assertions? Obviously there are some servers out there
running Microsoft products that might blue screen. Saying that blue screens
are inevitable in any Microsoft software is just stupid.
> Linux is a continuation of ONE concept. They aren't trying to re-invent
> the
> world and then HOPE it works.
Well, no. But, according to your little "south park" bit up above, Microsoft
isn't trying to re-invent the world, either. They're just stealing things
that have already been invented.
Same as, say, *cough* KDE *cough*, which is a very nice desktop environment
but still seems to be ripped almost directly from Windows.
> They don't have the manpower nor technical knowledge to accomplish their
> OS goals and I'm using 95, 98, NT and W2K as support for that argument!
Who doesn't? Microsoft? What are their "OS goals," where do they publicly
state them, and how are Windows 9x, NT, and Windows 2000 support for any of
what you just claimed?
> If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
> OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
Let's see... I've had several badly coded Winamp plugins decide to do some
nasty stuff, and once Quake III decided to chop off half of the screen. I
just went to the task manager and killed the application, and everything was
back to normal. It didn't take the OS down, and prolonged use of Windows
2000 hasn't become very disasterous.
Now, I'm not saying that Linux is any different. It's certainly very stable.
> We have another company who's had some Linux boxes in continuous
> scientific
> research now for 1 year and 4 months running. I've got some other
> business
> contacts who've had Linux servers up for almost 3 years running.
That's great -- Linux is indeed very stable. But saying "Linux is stable"
doesn't prove that "Windows 2000 is not stable."
> I have been recognized in several magazines for my efforts in converting
> software for the life insurance companies of America and I'm on the
> front
> cover of one of America's most popular compilers.
That's pretty neat!
> Unless you've written software and have some expertise in the OS's you
> work
> with, you have positively NO business giving out recommendations to
> inferior products.
Well, yes, I do -- I have written some software (not very large stuff, yet)
but I do use the OSs that I talk about, and so I have knowledge of how they
work. I feel that I DO have business giving out recommendations... to a lot
of different products. Just because I don't have your 20 years in the
software industry, many articles, picture on commercial software, big fluffy
rabbit, etc. doesn't mean that I'm incapable of thinking.
> And let me just add this. If Microsoft had it's head pulled out of it's
> butt,
> the world would NOT have had to endure this ILOVEYOU VB script.
Uh... Microsoft really could have prevented users from clicking on an
attachment. They do have
http://www.microsoft.com/misc/data/lovelettervirus.htm that supposedly has
information and resources for the ILOVEYOU virus.
> This is YET another example of why I say Microsoft was NEVER ready for
> prime time.
How?
> People think Microsoft is the only way to empower them at the office.
> That's the real reason Microsoft is alive today. But that's the ONLY
> reason
> they are alive today. It isn't because of programming excellence.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking! I said, "Gee, Windows will empower
me at the office, considering I don't have one, even after I've been using
only Linux for the past 4 years!" It looks like you haven't considered the
fact the some people use Microsoft software because it works for them, not
because they're mindless shills.
-Evan
Charlie Ebert
>
> Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers since
> I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What more
> do you want?
And this is what it takes to be a Windows supporter today.
> > And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
>
> Uh, that's a great assertion. Do you have any proof? Stephen Edwards pointed
> to several high load, high profile web sites that are running IIS and
> Windows 2000/NT. Are they merely imaginary?
Oh god son. You are just beginning in life. You need to go read some
magazines.
> > Linux is a continuation of ONE concept. They aren't trying to re-invent
> > the
> > world and then HOPE it works.
>
> Well, no. But, according to your little "south park" bit up above, Microsoft
> isn't trying to re-invent the world, either. They're just stealing things
> that have already been invented.
It would truely only make sense Evan if you were a computer programmer.
But I think someday son you will be one. And I wish you the best of
luck.
I have a 17 year old daughter and a 13 year old daughter myself.
I think it's good you support what you believe Evan.
But I also think you should explore and learn now.
And I'm going to pry on your curiosity some now.
I want you to buy a box of Suse 6.4 down at the computer store
and install it on your machine so you can compare W2K to
Suse.
Then I want you to come back here and talk with us again.
Take care
Charlie
Charlie Ebert
Okay, I'll give you my professional opinion on this.
Stock markets always wallow in a certain technology just before a
monuments
change is about to occur.
There is every sound reason to believe that with the Breakup of
Microsoft,
Combined with the manpower of Linux, we see a sudden death of Microsoft
OS by 2006.
There you go!
Charlie
Charlie Ebert
> >
> > Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
> >
> > the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
> > it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
> > The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
>
>
> > OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
> >
>
> if it hasn't crashed on you. There is no bug free OS.
I think the point your missing here is nobody in the world has
experienced it and wrote about it. It's true apps die, but
not the entire OS such as in a blue screen!
>
> >
> > This is YET another example of why I say Microsoft was NEVER ready for
> > prime time.
> >
>
Charlie Ebert
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| rakm...@primenet.com | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
I did some checking on this group.
See, they are writing AI under Microsoft products!
HA.
Charlie
Charlie Ebert
>
> > --
> > .-----.
> > |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> > | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> > | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> > |_..._| rakm...@primenet.com | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>
>
> See, they are writing AI under Microsoft products!
>
> HA.
>
> Charlie
Oh geeze, If Microsoft only has 16 and 18 year olds behind them,
then I'll move this death estimate up to 2005!
Charlie
ax
> > >
> > > So Linux will survive and the GPL is sound.
> >
> > Watch how the stock market justifies the soundness of GPL.
> > Have fun !
> >
> > >
> > > Microsoft does the reverse of this, or course.
> > >
> > > Charlie
>
> Okay, I'll give you my professional opinion on this.
> Stock markets always wallow in a certain technology just before a
> monuments
> change is about to occur.
>
> There is every sound reason to believe that with the Breakup of
> Microsoft,
> Combined with the manpower of Linux, we see a sudden death of Microsoft
> OS by 2006.
>
That's still a slow death of Microsoft in SIX YEARS compared to the
cooling down of Linux hype in just SIX MONTHS.
> There you go!
>
> Charlie
Stephen S. Edwards II
> > --
> > .-----.
> > |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> > | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> > | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> > |_..._| rakm...@primenet.com | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>
>
>
> I did some checking on this group.
>
> See, they are writing AI under Microsoft products!
And I see that you never answered any of my questions.
Since you absolutely refused to post proof to back up
your claims, I can only conclude that you are lying
about nearly everything you said. Now, please give
COMNA a rest. We already have enough village idiots
posting from COLA, and we don't need another.
Stephen S. Edwards II
> ax wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> > news:391E17B5...@mmcable.com...
> > >
> > > Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
> > >
> > > It's a bunch of borrowed ideas which have been sewed together over
> > > the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
> > > it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
> > > The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
> >
> > Linux borrowed and stole more.
> >
> > > If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
> > > OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
> > >
> >
> > Don't naturally assume Linux OS never crashes on others
> > if it hasn't crashed on you. There is no bug free OS.
>
>
> I think the point your missing here is nobody in the world has
> experienced it and wrote about it. It's true apps die, but
> not the entire OS such as in a blue screen!
I guess I can conclude that you're lying about being
a programmer too. You've been programming for 20 years,
and you've never seen X (a priveleged root process) lock
up a system? Charlie, if you were as experienced as you
state you are, you'd know that all software sucks, and
that all hardware sucks.
It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees. This
has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
hardware problem.
Perry Pip
There you go again, stereotyping the behavior of an entire group in
response to the behavior of one individual. You are sounding like a
zealot yourself.
>You cannot
>enter anecdotal evidence as proof to a claim.
However, when no scientific evidence is available, and anecdotal
evidence is all that you have to base your professional decisions on,
then you have to use it.
At my place of employment, they are using NT file/print/mail servers
to server nearly 10,000 client seats, mostly Win98 but many Mac, NT
and *nix clients as well. In order to stabilize their NT servers they
have had to nearly double the number of machines from that which was
orrignally to keep machines from crashing under heavy load. This has
doubled their anticipated hardware and licensing budget and has thus
been a major embarrassment for them. And I really felt sorry for them
a week ago when they had all of the NT file/print/mail servers down
for two days straight in order to clean up the Iloveyou virus.
In our specific scientific and engineering areas. including the one
where I work as a developer, we develop custom applications where
stability, scalability, portability and flexibility are often major
issues. For these applications, MS Windows is rarely considered an
option.
>Microsoft-IIS is also being used by Compaq, Nasdaq, and The National
>Football League.
>Windows 2000 users include Microsoft, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Hotbot,
>BigCharts, and Dell.
And now you yourself are giving us anecdotal evidence. In how many of
these cases did they have to substantially increase the number of
machines from originnaly planned in order to keep NT from cratering
under heavy load??
>Now, I suppose you're going to give a conspiracy theory
>entailing that Windows 2000/IIS is used _ONLY_ because
>Microsoft is forcing these companies to do so?
It is a well known fact the MS has subsidized people to use NT so that
they could publish an NT success story.
>|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
There are BSD zealots too. Mostly they are jealous of Linux.
Perry
ax
"Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
news:391EC6B2...@mmcable.com...
> ax wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> > news:391E17B5...@mmcable.com...
> > >
> > > OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
> > >
> >
> > Don't naturally assume Linux OS never crashes on others
> > if it hasn't crashed on you. There is no bug free OS.
>
>
> I think the point your missing here is nobody in the world has
> experienced it and wrote about it. It's true apps die, but
> not the entire OS such as in a blue screen!
I experienced it and I also wrote (complained) it to this
group. When MS Windows crashes, I simply reboot it. But the
Linux crash I had could not even boot itself. It was a TOTAL death.
Here is the user event sequence before the crash:
- copied a plain text file created under windows from a floppy to disk
- cd <mydir>
- vi <myfile>
- shutdown Linux
- went to sleep ...
- woke up the next morning, and powered on the computer
- Linux could not boot itself
The same problem did not happen again and I could not
reproduce it. But it did happen once.
Perry Pip
<ev...@spamisanastymeat.telerama.com> wrote:
>> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
>
>Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers since
>I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
>FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What more
>do you want?
Some real world experience, i.e. deploying systems in business,
scientific, or engineering applications. Not that I mean to knock
you. You're only 16, so someday you'll get some if you want and until
that time you should continue to remain open minded as you
are. However having a PC at home is not the same as implementing
solutions in the real business world.
Perry
Perry Pip
<tg...@cyclic.aux.net> wrote:
>It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
>very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
>but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
>possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees.
That's funny. I've been using Linux for six years, and I've *never*
had X take a kernel down, i.e. I could always telnet to the
system. And in the last couple of years, I haven't had any console
lock ups either.
>This
>has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
>hardware problem.
It's funny that the only people who claim that Linux crashes for them
and NT doesn't are the Windows advocates on the newsgroups. Whereas
the rest of the world, including the mainstream press seem to agree
Linux is more stable.
Perry
abraxas
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <yt...@mutilation.net>
> wrote on 14 May 2000 06:19:49 GMT <8flgi5$ch9$1...@news.enteract.com>:
>>
>>> *sigh* When are you Linvocates going to learn? You cannot
>>> enter anecdotal evidence as proof to a claim. How the hell
>>> do we know that you're not just contriving this stuff in
>>> order to look like you're a techie, when you really just
>>> work for the postal service, or something to that effect?
>>
>>I tried (uneffectively) to start a winamp plug-in.
>>
>>I cut the power halfway through the 512 meg memory dump, booted
>>into linux and I shall never, ever look back. I needed an excuse
>>to never have a surprise shutdown ever again. My next reboot
>>will be right after I compile a stable 2.4 kernel to handle a
>>USB mouse.
>>
>>
>>> I see. Well, according to NetCraft.com:
>>
>>> Microsoft-IIS is also being used by Compaq, Nasdaq, and The National
>>> Football League.
>>
>>very soon. (ok, so its not linux, but its not windows either. :))
> Not yet.
> bash$ telnet www.nfl.com www
> Trying 204.202.130.220...
> Connected to www.nfl.com.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> HEAD / HTTP/1.0
> Connection closed by foreign host.
> ?
> bash$ telnet www.nfl.com www
> Trying 204.202.130.220...
> Connected to www.nfl.com.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> HEAD / HTTP/1.1
> HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
> Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
> Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 11:17:58 GMT
> Connection: close
> Set-Cookie: SWID=E7DA5BAF-2987-11D4-9BCA-009027302310; path=/;
> expires=Sun, 14-May-2020 11:17:58 GMT; domain=.nfl.com;
> Content-Length: 407
> Content-Type: text/html
> Connection closed by foreign host.
Jesus dude, I didnt mean in the next few MINUTES.
> Of course, it's possible that www.nfl.com may be switching to
> a DNS rotator type of system (somewhat like www.cnn.com), and that
> some systems on that rotator may be using one OS/webserver
> combination, and others using some other OS/webserver.
I have no idea what kind of dns they use or will be using...
-----yttrx
abraxas
> "Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
> news:391EC78C...@mmcable.com...
>> > --
>> > .-----.
>> > |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
>> > | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
>> > | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
>> > |_..._| rakm...@primenet.com | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>>
>>
>>
>> I did some checking on this group.
>>
>> See, they are writing AI under Microsoft products!
> And I see that you never answered any of my questions.
> Since you absolutely refused to post proof to back up
> your claims, I can only conclude that you are lying
> about nearly everything you said.
I love it when you fall back on this argument; the one thats continually
used on you.
> Now, please give
> COMNA a rest. We already have enough village idiots
> posting from COLA, and we don't need another.
Then why did you crosspost back to it?
You never clean up your crossposts.
-----yttrx
abraxas
> I guess I can conclude that you're lying about being
> a programmer too. You've been programming for 20 years,
> and you've never seen X (a priveleged root process) lock
> up a system?
In the last ten years, ive seen this happen ONE time. ONCE.
And it was under an experimental mach-kernel based linux.
Ive never, ever seen it happen under ANY unix at ALL. And
ive seen alot of UNIX.
I'm not saying that it has never happened. I'm saying that
you're twit for insinuating that it happens anywhere NEAR
one one hundredth of one percent of the time that it happens
to windows. Even W2K.
> Charlie, if you were as experienced as you
> state you are, you'd know that all software sucks, and
> that all hardware sucks.
True. But windows on intel sucks the most, and everyone
knows it.
> It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
> very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
> but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
> possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees.
Ive never had this happen to me, not once. Sure, a long time
ago I had to ssh into my machine from the one next to it now
and then to fix a locked X, but the OS itself certianly didnt
die.
> This
> has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
> hardware problem.
Sounds like its an intelligence problem.
-----yttrx
ax
> > > Now I'd like to read some about your background?
> >
> > Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers
since
> > I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> > FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What
more
> > do you want?
> Oh god son. You are just beginning in life. You need to go read some
> magazines.
> It would truely only make sense Evan if you were a computer programmer.
> But I think someday son you will be one. And I wish you the best of
> luck.
>
> I have a 17 year old daughter and a 13 year old daughter myself.
>
> I think it's good you support what you believe Evan.
>
> But I also think you should explore and learn now.
>
> And I'm going to pry on your curiosity some now.
>
> I want you to buy a box of Suse 6.4 down at the computer store
> and install it on your machine so you can compare W2K to
> Suse.
>
> Then I want you to come back here and talk with us again.
How you speak to your kids is your own business.
But over the net, everyone is equal and worth respecting
regardless of ages.... etc.
This sixteen year old is brilliant and I found myself learnt a lot
from him as an older timer in software programming than you.
> Take care
>
> Charlie
JEDIDIAH
I'm torturing Oracle 8.0.5.1 at this very moment actually.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
Leslie Mikesell
>
>I experienced it and I also wrote (complained) it to this
>group. When MS Windows crashes, I simply reboot it. But the
>Linux crash I had could not even boot itself. It was a TOTAL death.
>Here is the user event sequence before the crash:
>
> - copied a plain text file created under windows from a floppy to disk
> - cd <mydir>
> - vi <myfile>
> - shutdown Linux
> - went to sleep ...
> - woke up the next morning, and powered on the computer
> - Linux could not boot itself
>
>The same problem did not happen again and I could not
>reproduce it. But it did happen once.
Could you boot from a floppy and still see the filesystems? There
were e2fs in kernel versions from about 2.2.5 to 2.2.10 that could
cause odd things to happen.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Leslie Mikesell
Stephen S. Edwards II <tg...@cyclic.aux.com> wrote:
>It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
>very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
>but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
>possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees. This
>has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
>hardware problem.
Most X-related problems only lock the console and leave
the system running. You can telnet in and either recover
by killing X or doing a clean shutdown. I have had complete
lockups on a few occasions that I've generally blamed on
having gpm running along with X. Some versions would cause
this, and I think the bug continued even after they claimed
it was fixed. Anyway I never use the mouse without X running
and think things would be more stable if the distributions would
stop activating gpm by default. I've never seen the lockup
on a machine without gpm running, but it is rare enough that
this doesn't really prove the relationship.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Evan DiBiase
> > > Now I'd like to read some about your background?
> >
> > Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers
since
> > I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> > FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What
more
> > do you want?
>
No, it just means that I've at least had experience with many of the major
OSen for the x86 platform.
> > > And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
> >
> > Uh, that's a great assertion. Do you have any proof? Stephen Edwards
pointed
> > to several high load, high profile web sites that are running IIS and
> > Windows 2000/NT. Are they merely imaginary?
>
> Oh god son. You are just beginning in life. You need to go read some
> magazines.
I do :)
> > > Linux is a continuation of ONE concept. They aren't trying to
re-invent
> > > the
> > > world and then HOPE it works.
> >
> > Well, no. But, according to your little "south park" bit up above,
Microsoft
> > isn't trying to re-invent the world, either. They're just stealing
things
> > that have already been invented.
>
> It would truely only make sense Evan if you were a computer programmer.
> But I think someday son you will be one. And I wish you the best of
> luck.
Thank you! But I fail to understand what would make sense... is there
something I can clarify for you?
> I think it's good you support what you believe Evan.
>
> But I also think you should explore and learn now.
Me too.
> And I'm going to pry on your curiosity some now.
>
> I want you to buy a box of Suse 6.4 down at the computer store
> and install it on your machine so you can compare W2K to
> Suse.
Well, I'd rather not, to tell you the truth. It was rather trying going
through all the operating systems listed above. I've used quite a few Linux
distributions: Red Hat 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, Debian 2.0, 2.1, and
potato, SuSE 5.2 and 5.3 (I've never used the 6.x series), Mandrake 7.0-2,
and Slackware 4.0 and 7.0. I've heard that SuSE 6.x is very nice, and
continues on the tradition of having a lot of software and being designed
very well, but I'm very familiar with the Linux userland, and I like Windows
2000 quite a bit better. Besides, I've just gotten settled, and now you want
me to get everything set up again? :)
> Then I want you to come back here and talk with us again.
I'd be happy to discuss any aspect of Linux with you. It's a very nice OS.
-Evan
Evan DiBiase
news:slrn8htnf7....@apollo.netservers.com...
> >
> >Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers
since
> >I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> >FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What
more
> >do you want?
>
> scientific, or engineering applications. Not that I mean to knock
> you. You're only 16, so someday you'll get some if you want and until
> that time you should continue to remain open minded as you
> are. However having a PC at home is not the same as implementing
> solutions in the real business world.
I understand completely :) I wasn't trying to argue for the business side of
things, but merely for the having a PC at home side of things. Sorry if I
gave off that impression.
-Evan
Leslie Mikesell
Evan DiBiase <ev...@spamisanastymeat.telerama.com> wrote:
>> What really gets me sick is to see somebody who uses their NT box
>> as some telnet device or web browser, a light load, then proclaims
>> triumphantly that NT is working.
>
>Well, it's working _for me_. You seem to imply that "working" is running
>slashdot.org or microsoft.com. For me, working _is_ browsing the web, using
>ICQ, using Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, and everything else a typical "home
>user" does. I also use Visual C++.
'Working' is having a machine serving at least an office full of
people, generally with some activity 24x7, and being able sleep
at night without worrying about being paged.
>In short, I don't know why this would make you sick. It's working for me, so
>why can't I proclaim that NT is working?
A machine that can be rebooted on a whim without having to apologize
to anyone else for losing their work doesn't count.
>> I've been a computer programmer for very close to 20 years now.
>
>Excellent. I've been a computer programmer for very close to 2 years now. So
>what?
Try running your programs on wildly different CPU type. Something
with a different bit/byte order would be a good test. And use
some different compilers that have different struct padding too.
Find out whether you have been locked into only being able to
use your programming work under a single vendor's OS and compiler.
>> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
>
>Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers since
>I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
>FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What more
>do you want?
Some experience on different CPU types would be good. Many people
who started programming in that time frame really don't understand
that there are alternatives to Intel style processors.
>Even ignoring the "south park"/PARC confusion and the fact that they didn't
>create DOS, I say: What's wrong with borrowing ideas? Linux wouldn't be the
>operating system you know and will defend to the death if Linus hadn't tried
>to copy, well, everything from UNIX. "Selective borrowing" is a good thing.
>If Microsoft sees that multitasking is a good thing, why shouldn't they add
>it? You'd probably be complaining that Windows has no multitasking if
>Microsoft took your "advice" and decided to think of ideas on its own.
Linux does the 'borrowing' right by maintaining the source-level
API. That is, programs I wrote 15 years ago that migrated across
many different CPU types and unix flavors compiled and worked under
Linux. Windows borrowed the same ideas but made sure that it was
incompatible even at the source level with anything else to lock
developers to their platform even when you use theoretically portable
languages like C.
>> And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
>
>Uh, that's a great assertion. Do you have any proof? Stephen Edwards pointed
>to several high load, high profile web sites that are running IIS and
>Windows 2000/NT. Are they merely imaginary?
Web servers are a special case because of the stateless nature of
http. All large sites are really 'farms' of servers behind some
kind of load-balancing and failover setup. If a machine dies
another one will pick up the next hit and nobody knows the
difference except the guy to pushes the button to reboot.
>Define "SERIOUS." I would consider the work I do on this computer to be
>"SERIOUS," and I don't need to reboot every 3-4 days.
Serving up hundreds to thousands of tcp connections, many over
slow and randomly failing links is a good test.
>I haven't gotten ANY BLUE SCREENS! Will you please at least make an attempt
>to back up your assertions? Obviously there are some servers out there
>running Microsoft products that might blue screen. Saying that blue screens
>are inevitable in any Microsoft software is just stupid.
They tend to come with loading an assortment of different software.
Win2k may be a big improvement in this area.
>That's great -- Linux is indeed very stable. But saying "Linux is stable"
>doesn't prove that "Windows 2000 is not stable."
Nobody has real experience with win2k yet. People with experience
with NT know it wasn't, at least before sp6a.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
ax
"Leslie Mikesell" <l...@Jupiter.mcs.net> wrote in message
news:8fms6n$56$1...@Jupiter.mcs.net...
I don't remember if I tried booting from floppy. But I did try all possible
ways I could think of at that time new to Linux.
I tried in vain to reproduce it to understand what caused it, but there was
no luck to reproduce.
> Les Mikesell
> l...@mcs.com
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote on 14 May 2000 17:39:47 GMT <8fmod3$1lur$2...@news.enteract.com>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine
><ew...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
[snip www.nfl.com www lookup for brevity]
>Jesus dude, I didnt mean in the next few MINUTES.
Hey man, on the Internet, people are supposed to be able to
configure things in a matter of seconds... :-) ;-) :-)
[rest snipped]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- sorry 'bout that
bme...@cs.monash.edu.au
>In article <H0BT4.3608$714.1...@news.magma.ca>, ax <a...@magma.ca> wrote:
>>Here is the user event sequence before the crash:
>>
>> - copied a plain text file created under windows from a floppy to disk
[...]
>> - shutdown Linux
[...]
>> - Linux could not boot itself
>>
>Could you boot from a floppy and still see the filesystems? There
>were e2fs in kernel versions from about 2.2.5 to 2.2.10 that could
>cause odd things to happen.
On a more well-of-course-you-did-but-I-HAVE-to-ask sort of note: You *did*
remember to remove that floppy before trying to reboot the next day,
right?
Bernie
--
A faith is something you die for; A doctrine is something you kill for:
there is all the difference in the world
Tony Benn
British Labour politician, 1925-
Gary Hallock
>
>
> We decided to put Linux on a Dell notebook about a month ago. It's
> still not networked. The local Linux experts have ordered another
> PCMCIA net card for it. The funny thing is that the supplied card was
> specifically chosen to be Linux friendly.
>
> I must admit, when I see them hunched over the notebook typing away at
> the keyboard trying to get the thing work they do have expressions on
> their faces like they have pineapples up their arses.
So. I installed Redhat Linux 6.1 on my 760XL Thinkpad with a PCMCIA
modem and a PCMCIA token ring card. It works perfectly. I plug into
the local LAN and have NFS and AFS up and running. I even have Lotus
Notes running under Wine. It sure beats using Windows to run Notes.
Gary
Charlie Ebert
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2000 10:05:44 -0700, Stephen S. Edwards II
> <tg...@cyclic.aux.net> wrote:
>
> >It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
> >very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
> >but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
> >possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees.
>
> had X take a kernel down, i.e. I could always telnet to the
> system. And in the last couple of years, I haven't had any console
> lock ups either.
>
> >has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
> >hardware problem.
>
> and NT doesn't are the Windows advocates on the newsgroups. Whereas
> the rest of the world, including the mainstream press seem to agree
> Linux is more stable.
>
> Perry
I will say I've never had Linux let me down in 6 years I've seriously
used it.
It's been a very dependable OS with the ability to survive some very
rigourous
testing. And in the security department is simply leaves Microsoft in
the dust.
I think most of these negative comments about Linux would not be posted
IF
the poster ever ran Linux. And in some cases, if the people who ran
Linux
knew what they were doing. Most mostly the comments come from people
who've
NEVER run LINUX.
Charlie
Charlie Ebert
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2000 10:08:38 -0400, Evan DiBiase
> <ev...@spamisanastymeat.telerama.com> wrote:
> >
> >Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers since
> >I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> >FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What more
> >do you want?
>
> scientific, or engineering applications. Not that I mean to knock
> you. You're only 16, so someday you'll get some if you want and until
> that time you should continue to remain open minded as you
> are. However having a PC at home is not the same as implementing
> solutions in the real business world.
>
I think what Perry is trying to tell you is to NOT bury yourself in
one OS. By the time you finish college, there most likely WON'T be
a Microsoft OS division anymore.
This is something to think about....
Charlie
Charlie Ebert
>
> > > --
> > > .-----.
> > > |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> > > | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> > > | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> > > |_..._| rakm...@primenet.com | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
> >
> >
> >
> > I did some checking on this group.
> >
> > See, they are writing AI under Microsoft products!
>
> And I see that you never answered any of my questions.
>
> Since you absolutely refused to post proof to back up
> your claims, I can only conclude that you are lying
> COMNA a rest. We already have enough village idiots
> posting from COLA, and we don't need another.
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| rakm...@primenet.com | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
What questions have you asked Steve!
You just made some bullshit observations of your own.
To my knowledge you've not asked one question yet.
Charlie
Nyarlathotep
>
> > Ghengis
> > Khan showed up with armored riders on horseback and nearly sacked
> > Rome.
>
> Ghengis Khan was born centuries after the fall of Rome.
Well Rome was sacked more than once. However Ghengis got no where
near Rome. The Mongols had secret treaties with Venice and they
would not cross their only European ally. I believe Ghengis
only got as far as Georgia and Russia with a scouting army
headed by his top general and son.Ogedi Khan had troops as far
as Hungary and Poland. China was much more important to the Mongols.
Microsoft headed by a brilliant, efficient and ruthless leader like
Ghengis Khan would mean an end to innovation everywhere, not just in
Redmond like now where they only know it as a buzzword.
--
From the backwoods of High Spings, Florida.
John Midtgard
Cat: What? Am I the only sane one here? Why don't we drop the defensive
shields?
Kryten: A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One: We
don't have any defensive shields, and Two: We don't have any defensive
shields. Now, I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw,
but I thought that it was such a big one it was worth mentioning twice.
--Red Dwarf, Holoship
Jacques Guy
> Stephen S. Edwards II <tg...@cyclic.aux.net> wrote:
> >You cannot
> >enter anecdotal evidence as proof to a claim.
> However, when no scientific evidence is available, and anecdotal
> evidence is all that you have to base your professional decisions on,
> then you have to use it.
Any body of evidence consists of accumulated anecdotal evidence--of
individual observations. The rejection of a piece of "anecdotal
evidence"
(really a piece of evidence, period) is rejection ad hoc, rejection
of evidence that contradicts one's view. Certainly, one piece of
evidence does not prove a claim. But two hundred may go towards
strengthening a claim ("strengthening", not "proving").
Evan DiBiase
> In article <shtcpk4...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Evan DiBiase <ev...@spamisanastymeat.telerama.com> wrote:
>
> >> What really gets me sick is to see somebody who uses their NT box
> >> as some telnet device or web browser, a light load, then proclaims
> >> triumphantly that NT is working.
> >
> >Well, it's working _for me_. You seem to imply that "working" is running
> >slashdot.org or microsoft.com. For me, working _is_ browsing the web,
using
> >ICQ, using Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, and everything else a typical
"home
> >user" does. I also use Visual C++.
>
> 'Working' is having a machine serving at least an office full of
> people, generally with some activity 24x7, and being able sleep
> at night without worrying about being paged.
I disagree. That may be the case for you, but for me working is what I
described above.
> >In short, I don't know why this would make you sick. It's working for me,
so
> >why can't I proclaim that NT is working?
>
> A machine that can be rebooted on a whim without having to apologize
> to anyone else for losing their work doesn't count.
Sure it does. Not for business use, maybe, but you're unfairly cutting out a
section of things here by claiming that the only "real" work is business
work.
> >> I've been a computer programmer for very close to 20 years now.
> >
> >Excellent. I've been a computer programmer for very close to 2 years now.
So
> >what?
>
> Try running your programs on wildly different CPU type. Something
> with a different bit/byte order would be a good test. And use
> some different compilers that have different struct padding too.
> Find out whether you have been locked into only being able to
> use your programming work under a single vendor's OS and compiler.
Well, right. Obviously porting things is a pain. But I'm just learning... I
agree that it's a good idea to get as much experience as possible, in any
area.
> >> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
> >
> >Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers
since
> >I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> >FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What
more
> >do you want?
>
> Some experience on different CPU types would be good. Many people
> who started programming in that time frame really don't understand
> that there are alternatives to Intel style processors.
True.
> >Even ignoring the "south park"/PARC confusion and the fact that they
didn't
> >create DOS, I say: What's wrong with borrowing ideas? Linux wouldn't be
the
> >operating system you know and will defend to the death if Linus hadn't
tried
> >to copy, well, everything from UNIX. "Selective borrowing" is a good
thing.
> >If Microsoft sees that multitasking is a good thing, why shouldn't they
add
> >it? You'd probably be complaining that Windows has no multitasking if
> >Microsoft took your "advice" and decided to think of ideas on its own.
>
> Linux does the 'borrowing' right by maintaining the source-level
> API. That is, programs I wrote 15 years ago that migrated across
> many different CPU types and unix flavors compiled and worked under
> Linux. Windows borrowed the same ideas but made sure that it was
> incompatible even at the source level with anything else to lock
> developers to their platform even when you use theoretically portable
> languages like C.
Yes, from the angle you're looking at this certainly is true. I was thinking
more of features, though.
> >> And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
> >
> >Uh, that's a great assertion. Do you have any proof? Stephen Edwards
pointed
> >to several high load, high profile web sites that are running IIS and
> >Windows 2000/NT. Are they merely imaginary?
>
> Web servers are a special case because of the stateless nature of
> http. All large sites are really 'farms' of servers behind some
> kind of load-balancing and failover setup. If a machine dies
> another one will pick up the next hit and nobody knows the
> difference except the guy to pushes the button to reboot.
Right, but some people in this forum would claim that it's basically
impossible for a Windows NT/2000 server to stay up for three seconds without
BSODing.
> >Define "SERIOUS." I would consider the work I do on this computer to be
> >"SERIOUS," and I don't need to reboot every 3-4 days.
>
> Serving up hundreds to thousands of tcp connections, many over
> slow and randomly failing links is a good test.
Well, sure, that's a good test for a server. But I'm running W2K
Professional -- a desktop machine. Serious work for me is programming,
surfing the web, writing... desktop stuff.
> >I haven't gotten ANY BLUE SCREENS! Will you please at least make an
attempt
> >to back up your assertions? Obviously there are some servers out there
> >running Microsoft products that might blue screen. Saying that blue
screens
> >are inevitable in any Microsoft software is just stupid.
>
> They tend to come with loading an assortment of different software.
> Win2k may be a big improvement in this area.
Yes, this is a fairly clean system. But I don't suspect that I'll be loading
much more on here, and everything is going very well.
> >That's great -- Linux is indeed very stable. But saying "Linux is stable"
> >doesn't prove that "Windows 2000 is not stable."
>
> Nobody has real experience with win2k yet. People with experience
> with NT know it wasn't, at least before sp6a.
This may be so. NT4 was pretty stable for me, but I didn't use it for very
long.
-Evan
Leslie Mikesell
Evan DiBiase <ev...@spamisanastymeat.telerama.com> wrote:
>> A machine that can be rebooted on a whim without having to apologize
>> to anyone else for losing their work doesn't count.
>
>Sure it does. Not for business use, maybe, but you're unfairly cutting out a
>section of things here by claiming that the only "real" work is business
>work.
To belabor the obvious, if it doesn't matter if you reboot, then
it doesn't matter and there is no reason to bring up the issue.
If you are doing something where it matters, you don't want to
have to reboot everytime you change a network setting, update IE,
install Netscape, update office, and all the other things where
NT insists on a reboot. Win2k does seem at least a little better
about this.
>Well, right. Obviously porting things is a pain. But I'm just learning... I
>agree that it's a good idea to get as much experience as possible, in any
>area.
My point is that among unix-like OS's, porting things isn't a pain,
at least among the recent versions if you were aware of a few
portability issues when writing it. Among windows-like OS's, well
there aren't any windows-like OS's.
>> Web servers are a special case because of the stateless nature of
>> http. All large sites are really 'farms' of servers behind some
>> kind of load-balancing and failover setup. If a machine dies
>> another one will pick up the next hit and nobody knows the
>> difference except the guy to pushes the button to reboot.
>
>Right, but some people in this forum would claim that it's basically
>impossible for a Windows NT/2000 server to stay up for three seconds without
>BSODing.
Some of them have extensive experience with NT. Mine has been that
it is possible to make it run for months if you have a very carefully
controlled software configuration with very stable applications and
don't change anything. If you install new software frequently or
run any buggy apps you can't count on it to keep working. Nobody
has lengthy experience with win2k yet. So far it has been much
better then NT for me, but it hasn't been long enough that I
trust it yet. My main complaint about win2k is the extent that
all the new network features require having an active directory
server in the picture.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Jim Richardson
Full Name, in the persona of <ma...@address.com>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sat, 13 May 2000 18:51:33 +1000, Sam <sr145@h_o_tmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>OK, I can play this game.
>>
>>Let me give you a better example.
>>
>>Lets say the "Cancer cure" is sticking a Pineapple up your arse,
>>painful but effective, This would be the Linux version, cost minimal.
>>
>>Lets say someone (MS) develops a different cure, and charges you $100
>>for a Pineapple fruit juice in a convenient go anywhere pack with a
>>drinking straw.
>>
>>Which would you choose ?
>>
>>Sam
>>
>>
>
>LOL!!
>
>We decided to put Linux on a Dell notebook about a month ago. It's
>still not networked. The local Linux experts have ordered another
>PCMCIA net card for it. The funny thing is that the supplied card was
>specifically chosen to be Linux friendly.
>
A little over 18 months ago my wife bought a laptop for her work, Initially
it was a linux/Win98 dual boot, but windows was too much trouble, so it was
eventually linux only. The only problem (linux wise) with it was the internal
winmodem, which is basically non-functional in linux. The rest of the system
works great, I bought a non-name 10-100 BaseT PC card for it, and under linux,
just boot up, insert card, and you're good to go, windows, while it _eventually_
accepted the card was a struggle from start to finish, and pulling the card
whilst in windows caused all kinds of troubles. pulling the card and replacing
it with a diff ethernet card, never worked in windows, linux did it without
a hitch. So I guess my anecdote cancesl out yours huh...
>I must admit, when I see them hunched over the notebook typing away at
>the keyboard trying to get the thing work they do have expressions on
>their faces like they have pineapples up their arses.
>
>
>
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Jim Richardson
Bloody Viking, in the persona of <nos...@masu.wwa.com>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote:
>
>: Linux can't go bankrupt.
>
>: Linux will never be drawn into an anti monopolistic lawsuit with the
>: Federal Government, or any other Government.
>
>: Linux will never be mis-trusted by the public.
>
>: Linux will be around when Bill Gates dies.
>
>: Linux will be around when Microsoft has long been forgotten and copies
>: of
>: NT are in the Smithsonian on display!
>
>: Linux will most likely outlast several of the worlds governments.
>
>: While it's name might not continue to be Linux, through the centuries it
>: will travel,
>: it will always be with mankind.
>
>: Linux is like a statue which has traveled through time.
>
>: Linux is like the human race - as long as there is love it will be
>: there.
>
>: In a strange way, Linux is like the pyramids in the respect that it will
>: be
>: with mankind for several centuries.
>
>I found the above funny. One thing computer-wise that Linux can't do to my
>knowledge is config a mouse driver for lefty operation. I could be wrong.
>If I'm wrong, it's no problem as I leave the mouse config alone and leave
>it righty while I use it lefty. I do it that way for righty-compliance. I
>would sooner add a toggle switch to a mouse than fuck with a mouse driver
>config.
>
No sweat, in gnome, use the control panel, in KDE, I think the control panel
will do this. In plain X, I am not sure, but I suspect that the XF86Config
file will have something to do with this. Under gpm, I don't know.
Roger
wrote:
>It is a well known fact the MS has subsidized people to use NT so that
>they could publish an NT success story.
Then you should have no problem documenting a dozen cases where this
has happened?
Half a dozen?
One?
Didn't think so...
Colin R. Day
> "Colin R. Day" <cd...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >
> > > Ghengis
> > > Khan showed up with armored riders on horseback and nearly sacked
> > > Rome.
> >
> > Ghengis Khan was born centuries after the fall of Rome.
>
> Well Rome was sacked more than once.
In terms of the Western Empire, it fell in 476 AD. Ghengis Khan lived
in the 12th and 13th centuries, well after any of the falls of Rome.
Charlie Ebert
You haven't been alive very long.
BTW, did I mention I actually started my computer career before you were
born.
Charlie