Re: what does "serialization" mean?

From: Edward G. Nilges (spinoza1111_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/06/04 

Date: 6 Jul 2004 04:11:30 -0700

Randy Howard <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b53c53e8fbe810598990b@news.verizon.net>...
> In article <f5dda427.0407051608.33f59ee4@posting.google.com>, spinoza1111
> @yahoo.com says...
> > Richard Heathfield complained that threads I initiated were
> > "off-topic". I replied courteously giving reasons why they were not,
> > addressing him using his Christian name correctly from his address, a
> > courtesy which has been consistently withheld me by certain parties.
>
> Corey just posted a reference to of the responses you made, it
> was far less than cordial.
>
> > You are referring to my interpretation of his conduct as Fascist,
>
> No, I'd forgotten that, but you are the master of Godwin invocation,
> I'll grant you that.
>
> > So *** you, ***.
>
> Ahh, that is the collegial, mature, professional response I expected.
> The Turret's is acting up again. I've heard that doctors are working
> hard on a cure. With any luck at all, you may live long enough to
> benefit from it.

(more than one year of trolling) --> "so *** you, ***"

So *** you, ***.

>
> > > You are clueless. Amazon? Amazon has used Linux instead of Windows for at
> > > least the last 3-4 years. In an SEC filing several years ago, they said that
> > > technology expenses were cut by $17 Million bucks, or 25% of their
> > > expenditures when they moved from Microsoft to Linux.
> > >
> > Sure, when their volumes approached the level Microsoft servers can't
> > handle.
>
> I'll take that as an admission that MS systems simply don't stack up for
> enterprise usage.

No you won't because you are dazzled by mere efficiency. Some of us
are more than bit pushers and consider, of course, presentation.

>
> > ....based as it is on theft of intellectual property.
>
> You better watch out, some of those boys have a pot to piss in, they may
> haul you into court for libel. ROTFLMAO.

Clearly, you don't understand the law of libel which of course permits
commentary on matters of public concern and makes your abuse
(including malicious lies) actionable.

>
> > Ignorant techies have made a number of mistakes over time such as
> > creating the Y2K annoyance.
>
> Well, I hold you personally responsible, because you were there and
> did nothing about it. Y2K was totally your fault. :-)
>
> > The next mistake will be Linux which will
> > be a time-bomb at such time as the final owner of the improvements
> > made by Lucent and Bell Labs asserts that ownership over Walmart's and
> > Barnes and Noble's bottom line.
>
> Does Barnes and Noble use Linux?
>
> > There is no such thing as a free good.
>
> Sure there is, although I'm sure you've always had to pay for it.

Oh? You are in receipt of stolen goods? How terribly interesting.

>
> > The only way to reliably run a system available in source code while
> > applying modifications in source code is to be very disciplined about
> > those modifications and maintain an audit trail.
>
> That's why the complete source code repository and revision history
> is available for the Linux kernel, as well as the majority of the
> packages available for it. Note that's not the case with MS OS's.

Not for individual installations. Get a clue. The source code is
available at each installation and given the ignorance of managers
like you, the first thing to go by the wayside will be the audit
trail.

>
> > 99% of Linux installations, precisely because they were sold on Linux
> > by unethical, incaring technicians without collegiality or
> > professionalism, will abandon proper maintenance procedures shortly
> > after installation.
>
> Translation: Nilges just pulled another worthless statistic out of his
> backside.
>
It's not a statistic. It's based on experience with clients who have
source including Standard Oil.

 
> > Furthermore it appears to me that many of Linux' fans are people who
> > work most of the time with Microsoft software.
>
> Not my experience at all. Most of the loyal Linux followers won't
> run anything MS, even if it causes them great inconvenience. Personally,
> I find that pointless, but it's their hardware, they can do as they
> see fit with it.
>
At a recent conference on open source, the audience was polled and it
was discovered that open source is recreational. Most of the audience
was using proprietary software.
  
> > > It has responded with very well researched technical reports, explaining
> > > the actual origin of each line of code claimed so far by SCO to be an
> > > infringement. The record to date is nothing short of a "bitch slap" of
> > > SCO, as all the code they have formally "claimed" ownership of in
> > > presentations so far has been shown to be from outside of their purview.
> >
> > Only insofar as the lines were written at Lucent and before that at
> > Bell Labs, and purchased by SCO in the 1990s.
>
> Untrue. Read the record. Many of those lines were published and placed
> in the public domain in magazines going back almost 40 years.
>
...not with the intent of making a few large companies rich.
 
> > The Big Lie of Linux is that it is even a distinct OS. It's not. It's
> > unix and it was based on a toy, Minix.
>
> Strange, the author of Minix claims that it is not. I suppose we all
> know which is a more viable source.
>
Strange, Torvaldys admits that he used the book in which Minix
appeared.
 
> >
> > > Eric Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO's strategic consultant Mike
> > > Anderer to their management. The email details how Microsoft has arranged
> > > virtually all of SCO's legal financing, a sum of approx. $50 million, via
> > > intermediaries like Baystar Capital, the private investment vehicle of Paul
> > > Allen, the second-largest MS shareholder behind Bill Gates.
> >
> > Damn right. It's all big money wherever we go.
>
> As long as MS is involved, probably. At least you seem to realize it's a FUD
> campaign, yet you yourself have fallen for it.
>
It's not FUD. Large companies are trying to get something for nothing
and attorneys will make it there business to prevent this, for their
own share of the rewards.

 
> > > Microsoft denied it vigorously for months before a Baystar offocial confirmed
> > > that it had indeed acted as intermediary for a deal between MS and SCO worth
> > > $50 million. That a big enough smoking gun for you?
> >
> > No, because lawsuits cost money. If I had a pot to piss in you'd have
> > been hauled into court months ago by me because of your libel,
>
> Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.... you bore the hell out of me.

So get lost and cease your abusive conduct.

>
> > Microsoft has the right to defend the fact that while academics were
> > talking about operating systems, and Apple was playing games,
> > Microsoft took the heat and developed an OS for the PC...without
> > copying it as did Lars Torvaldys from a book.
>
> BS. The history of how Gates has been accused of stealing/taking credit
> for/buying various bits of their early work is well known.

He bought MS-DOS' predecessor and paid a large sum for it. He has
NEVER tried to get something for nothing. IBM can't make this claim.
>
> Then, they went out and bought the Heathkit developer responsible for Benton
> Harbor Basic and used him to get GW-BASIC out the door.

At least they PAID him. The attraction of open source to the same sort
of companies that brought us the Enron rip-off is simple: "not paying
programmers any more".

Some of us remain interested in making an honest dollar as opposed to
what are in your case probably shady investments and an unmerited
retirement plan.
>
> > Indeed, I have always been struck by the breathtaking arrogance of
>
> Yourself? Quite.

Quantcast