Just wonderin'

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 11

Just wonderin'

Author:

koochee girl

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Dec 30, 2001

Comments:

I was just wondering what the deal is with this product called Executive Linux. So I would like to ask a couple of questions if I could.

More diaries by koochee girl

	TOS a joke to behold
	XP: almost complete
	Who's Copying Who?
	AMD and MS: Buudies?
	MS to share MORE code
	GPL goes to court
	GPL goes to court: Part 2

Why use the Mandrake installer?
What windowing system does it use?
What windows managers does it come with?
I see the Deluxe Edition is only available through retail sale. What other versions of Executive Linux are available?
Where can I download the binaries/source?
What boot loader is available with this distro?
How much of this distro is under the GNU General Public License?
What organization develops this distro? Adequacy?

Why would I need a replacement computer?

I am well aware that the entire thing is supposed to be one big joke, but you think you could have done a better job at it? The questions above are a few examples of things that would really help it out. Well, not really, because people think you're all stupid anyway.

Executive Linux Deluxe Edition from Adequacy
The only Linux distro designed by people that don't know anything about Linux or computers in general.

	Priorities.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 04:10:54 AM PST

	I think you overstate many parts of the Adequacy Linux joke. After all, mere technical matters are unimportant - it comes in a mahogany box, fer gawd's sake!. Can't you just feel the luxury of this distribution? It's got to be the all-time best shelfware ever produced.

	I see (none / 0) (#12)
	by koochee girl on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 06:11:16 PM PST

	So it will likely sit on the shelves much longer than MS Windows 286 and 386 did? Firewall Scoreboard

	exactly? (none / 0) (#25)
	by error27 on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 10:27:38 PM PST

	Is there some deep sarcasm I'm missing here? The adequacy.org lunix distribution is not designed for installing--arguably no linux distribution is--it is designed to make the user feel more l337. Hence the mahogany case. And there was never any Windows called MS Windows 286 or 386.

	I can prove you wrong (none / 0) (#34)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 12:58:39 AM PST

	And there was never any Windows called MS Windows 286 or 386 I found quite a number of links. Some include sources like PC Magazine. Some of the links even include pictures of the original Microsoft logo and Windows boxes. NOTE: Some of the sources mention Xenix. Please do not be one of these tards who runs around posting that MS originally wrote Unix or that Unix is based on Xenix. Here's the story on Xenix: Based on Unix System III, Microsoft's Xenix (companies that licensed Unix from Bell Labs weren't allowed to call it Unix, so Microsoft came up with the name "Xenix") ran on the IBM PC/XT and didn't come with TCP/IP or any of the networking software we've come to expect with Unix systems. Microsoft didn't even sell to end users. Instead, it licensed Xenix to companies such as SCO, Tandy, and Intel, who turned around and sold a branded Xenix to users. Alas, by the mid-1980s, Microsoft quit the Unix business to concentrate full time on DOS and Windows. Microsoft never even released a version of Xenix for the Intel 80286 processor. Now for the links about Windows/286 and Windows/386. Also remember that Windows was not originally an operating system. It was an "Operating Environment" or a software suite which ran under DOS however you want to word it. Windows 98: A History of Windows, PC Magazine Windows History Includes pictures of original MS logo and Windows boxes among others. Windows Version History Includes feature list for each version. Brief History of Microsoft Windows Microsoft Windows Version History Also includes some pictures Microsoft Windows History The following includes links to MS history pre-DOS. Some may include history on Traf-o-Data (the orignal company started by Bill Gates and Paul Allen which later became Micro-Soft then Microsoft). Microsoft and the Freedom to Subjugate: Microsoft History, The IBM PC A Window on History Mackido/History/IBMs_choice MS DOS The Operating System History I would like to point out that none of these articles mentions (or maybe they do I just skimmed them) that Gary Kildall later sued MS claiming that QDOS/86-DOS (MSDOS) were [at its core] CP/M. While MS never publicly admitted any wrong doing, they did settle out of court for an undisclosed some of money. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	blah blah blah... (none / 0) (#39)
	by error27 on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:21:16 AM PST

	Windows 286 was the code name but the actual name was Microsoft Windows 2.1 BTW. Sorry that I didn't have time to read your links. I'm sure they were very interesting and you had a great deal of fun collecting them. Unfortunately I'm not a college student with hours and hours to kill like you.

	actually (none / 0) (#41)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:55:04 AM PST

	Windows 286 was the code name but the actual name was Microsoft Windows 2.1 If you had visited the links you would know that when Windows/386 was released, Microsoft renamed Windows 2.0 to Windows/286 for consistency. Click here to see Windows 98 crash in Bill Gates face.(1.7megs Quick Time movie) You must right-click and select "Save Target AS" (IE) or "Save Link As" (Netscape). Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	do you ever stop to think (none / 0) (#54)
	by error27 on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:05:42 PM PST

	how funny it is that you guys are trying to make fun of Microsoft for having an unpopular version that came out ten years ago. I mean, it's 2002 and who's laughing now? Microsoft more than made up for the rough start didn't they?

	XP don't sell too good (none / 0) (#55)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 03:55:06 PM PST

	Copies of WindowsXP aren't exactly flying off the shelf either. The biggest sales are from PCs pre-loaded with XP. During the initial period 95 still outsold every Windows OS since (retail boxes). Windows 98 leads the way on licenses. MS likes to claim it is the most popular OS of all time. Liars. It's the most profitable yes ($99/199-Upgrade, $199/299-Full). Bill Gate's keynote speech 2 weeks after XP launch: "In just the two weeks since the global launch of Windows XP, Microsoft has already sold an amazing 7 million copies of Windows XP, which we are incredibly excited about," Gates said, referring to the total number of copies sold to computer makers and at retail. "We believe that Windows XP, along with exciting new technologies such as the Tablet PC, Xbox, Microsoft .NET Servers and XML Web services, will light a fire of innovation across the entire high-technology industry." Watch that 7 million carefully, and now watch it disappear. "With all the uncertainty, we weren't sure what the sales would be like, what the OEM sales would be like, what the retail sales would be like. Now, two weeks later, we have that data. Our OEM sales are far beyond any new product we've ever had. Our retail sales are more than double any version of Windows or, of course, any software product that's ever been released." Want more? "Since its retail debut Oct. 25, Microsoft Corp.'s newest operating system, Windows XP, is achieving high demand worldwide. So high that some retailers are having trouble keeping store shelves stocked with Windows XP. Growing consumer demand for Windows XP has led to sales that are exceeding initial sales of Windows 95 and Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me) and keeping pace with initial sales of Windows 98." - Microsoft, 8th November 2001. Exceeding? Keeping pace with? But three days later didn't Bill say "more than double"? Microsoft is counting the sales to PC manufacturers and retail stores. The number of PCs pre-loaded with XP and retail boxes is much much lower. How many of the 7 million units are still sitting on store shelves? What was it the used to call those old versions of Windows? Oh I know. Microsoft Warehouse. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Heh (none / 0) (#57)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 06:05:19 PM PST

	If people are so satisfied with 98, ME, and 2000, wbat makes you think they'll ever switch to Linux? Let me save you your usual series of mincing words and tiresome excuses: people wont switch to Linux because not only does it not offer any compelling advantages, it fairly sucks. That's all there is to it. Quit thinking so hard. It's so simple if you just shut up long enough to actually look at the way people use and feel about computers. (And no, stability is not an advantage; Windows2000 is much more stable than any version of Linux. Windows2000 has never, ever crashed on me, unlike both your precious unending kernel releases and most especially X, which regularly seizes and requires rebooting. Let's not even talk about apps, of which Linux boasts the largest choice of perpetually beta crap in an embarassingly slim number of categories. Ooh, look at all the editors that act like vi or emacs but arent.)

	depends really (none / 0) (#58)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 08:00:57 PM PST

	The stability of an OS really depends on whether or not people are willing to actually take the time to get it to work. Windows2000 does not always work with the hardware MS claims it does (according to their HCL). A lot of people are very please with Linux and a lot of people see it the same way as you do. It's perfectly ok to voice your opinion on a product. But simply to state the old "I'm smart so its true because I say so adequacy bullshit" is just plain silly. I myself have never had a major problem with Linux. Well I did but it was with Linux. I was backing up some files to a Linux system used primarily for back ups. The WindowsXP system that was transmitting the data crapped out and everything was garbled. People who are satisfied with certain software will continue to use it. Despite what people think I am not completely biased. If Windows works for you then you will continue to use it. If not you find something, just as you would with any other software. If Linux fulfills your needs you will continue to use it. I usually suggest to people that want to try Linux to dual boot. A number of them find they can do what they need in Linux, but keep Windows for games and software which they don't like the Linux equivalent. Some people use it, switch back and forth and such. Others simply don't like it. I know a number of people who have grown tired Windows 98. It had collected quite a few bugs (bugs not viruses) was running slowly and they were tired of patching. Windows 2000 or XP really would have solved their problem as they would need a pricey hardware purchase. All they did was wor procesing, spread sheet, accounting (gnuCash). For them Linux works well. If you don't have problems with Windows or Microsoft by all means continue to enjoy it. I'm not saying everyone should switch to Linux. It's not for everyone. Niether is any Unix variant for that matter. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Proof please (none / 0) (#59)
	by iat on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 02:19:27 AM PST

	Windows2000 does not always work with the hardware MS claims it does (according to their HCL). This sounds like an evil lie of dubious legality, so I request that you back this statement up with reliable evidence. Note that web pages are not classed as reliable sources of evidence, so your evidence must come from a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	why? (none / 0) (#61)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 12:39:07 PM PST

	Why would I waste my time with that? I have always wanted to use that in an argument. It seems to work so well for the Adequacy.org family of unitelligient morons. You won't find to many article about "My scanner don't work but MS said it would". Why don't you try downloading the XP Upgrade Advisory and comparing the results to the HCL. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	As I suspected (none / 0) (#63)
	by iat on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 01:15:54 PM PST

	You have no hard evidence to substantiate your ridiculous claims. Therefore, your claim that "Windows2000 does not always work with the hardware MS claims it does" is invalid, thus proving that (as I suspected all along), Windows always works with the hardware MS claims it does. This proves that Microsoft's software is far superior to Linux, which doesn't even support page printers (lpd, Linux's line printer daemon only supports line printers (such as outdated dot matrix and daisywheel printers) and is completely incompatible with more modern page printers (such as laser printers)). Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	dear god (none / 0) (#64)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 02:01:05 PM PST

	You won't find very many article and I am not going to go running around trying to find you one. Nobody is going to waste their time writing about how their scanner or their printer doesn't work with the newest version of Windows when the HCL says it will. I believe the last ones I cam across were little snipet in PC World and PC Magazine articles about upgrading to XP. Hardware Ms claimed wouldn't work did and some hardware MS claimed would work didn't. You had specifically said that you did not want websites. Fine how about a PC Hardware message board. That's where you will find most cases. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	here's a good one (none / 0) (#65)
	by koochee girl on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 02:15:30 PM PST

	This is a very good site if you want to check up on information. It is just one of the many boards. Why the limit it to the games section I'm not sure. There are also other boards. Game Boards Developer Boards Gear For Men Music Sports and more... Firewall Scoreboard

	SWEEEEET! (none / 0) (#66)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 02:27:37 PM PST

	I didn't know IGN.com had an entire board dedicated to the Mac! Thanx

	Why the replacement computer is needed (5.00 / 1) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 05:09:54 AM PST

	Linux is essentially a nostalgia operating system, sold primarily to hobbyists who remember with fondness the days when normal computing tasks took several weeks and no small measure of programming skill. The replacement computer is included so that normal users can get their work done, since linux will have rendered their old computer useless for serious work.

	Dear girl, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
	by osm on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 06:33:14 AM PST

	I couldn't help but notice you are a female. I am looking for a female to take on a position as an apprentice for my Profession. If you are proficient in the use of automatic weapons, are in your teens, and like older men, please drop me an email. Don't forget to include a picture and a recording of yourself reciting a line from "Leon". thanks.

	let's see (none / 0) (#13)
	by koochee girl on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 06:12:37 PM PST

	If you are proficient in the use of automatic weapons, are in your teens, and like older men, please drop me an email. Don't forget to include a picture and a recording of yourself reciting a line from "Leon". I'll tackle these in order that's none of your business I'm 24 I don't like men period. See above Firewall Scoreboard

	Dear "Girl", (none / 0) (#14)
	by osm on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 06:18:27 PM PST

	I'm sorry to inform you that your application has been turned down. You do not have the qualifications necessary to fill this position. Thanks for your interest and good luck with whatever decadent activities you decide to pursue.

	Allow me to clarify (none / 0) (#16)
	by koochee girl on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 06:45:49 PM PST

	I wasn't attempting to apply for the "position". Obviously you missed the point entirely. Permit me to clarify. NO DICKS ALLOWED. I mean you DO know what a lesbian is don't you? Firewall Scoreboard

	Of course I do (none / 0) (#17)
	by osm on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 06:53:26 PM PST

	A lesbian is a foul-mouthed degenerate who was likely abused by her father. Unfortunately, this - along with your obvious lack of purity - means you do not qualify for the position. Again, thanks for your interest in this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Now move along and give someone more qualified a chance.

	Hehe (none / 0) (#20)
	by koochee girl on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 07:49:28 PM PST

	A lesbian is a foul-mouthed degenerate who was likely abused by her father. First off I wasn't raised by my father. Killed by a drunk begger before I was born. So what if some lesbians are foul mouthed. So are straight people. It surely doesn't stop you from filling your hard drive with lesbian nudie pictures now does it? Firewall Scoreboard

	I'm sorry (none / 0) (#21)
	by osm on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 07:59:16 PM PST

	First off I wasn't raised by my father. Killed by a drunk begger before I was born. That explains a lot. So what if some lesbians are foul mouthed. Well, I was implying that YOU are foul-mouthed. Personally, I don't care about lesbians at all. Except for the one at Blockbuster. It surely doesn't stop you from filling your hard drive with lesbian nudie pictures now does it? I am not into pornography. I prefer grace, beauty and dignity. But I'm sure you wouldn't know anything about that.

	Can't you just leave osm alone? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
	by bc on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 09:10:58 AM PST

	He has already said that you are not suitable for the position, and no amount of moaning on your part will make him change his mind. I really find it rather disturbing that you are getting so obsessed over this. By the way, lesbians aren't generally considered attractive. Here are some simple, scientific facts about lesbians (this also applies to female bisexuals): Lesbians tend to be quite masculine. This is because the reason they are lesbians is an unusual excess of testosterone in their bloodstream. Contrary to popular belief, testosterone in a woman's bloodstream is a good thing, up to a point - it is the primary motivator behind the sex drive in both men and women. However, too high a level does of course tend to give a woman more masculine traits, and can even make her attracted to members of her own sex rather than the opposite! Also, by the way, testosterone in the female bloodstream is temporarily boosted by alchohol consumption - this is why many modern women have shockingly masculine appearances (dry, rough skin, excess of hair necessitating shaving, perhaps a small, but visible moustache - all hallmarks of the decadent 'party girl' used to her 50 units of alchohol a week). Lesbians are frequently mentally ill. A life spent with extreme gender confusion, rejecting the mores of society, those same mores that have kept our society together for many millenia, can create many tensions and confusions in the mind of the lesbian. Lesbians are generally schizophrenic. Lesbians are sexual gluttons (see my first point for why), but far worse than this, they reject the natural accompaniment to sex - love. We have all heard of Anthony and Cleopatra, Romeo and Juliet, and such tragic expressions of heterosexual love - where are the examples of tragic homosexual love? I do believe there are none, because lesbians are incapable of love. Indeed, I sometimes (in my more cynical moments) think that the female of the species is downright incapable of love as a man would understand it, but I can certainly be sure that lesbians are not. They are overcome by perverted basic urges, and rarely (if ever) think on a higher plane of sacrifice and spiritual, loving union with another. Now, please don't be too upset at me for saying this, I just thought that you should know why men (and women!) reject you and your kind. If I were you, I would take drugs to suppress the production of testosterone in your body, read plenty of Shakespeare (to ignite selfless appreciation of others and open the way to love) and perhaps (one day) try having a real, spiritual (not in a religious sense, wink) union with a Man. Just trying to help, feel free to take or reject my advice as you see fit. Just bear in mind that I speak from experience. ♥, bc.

	you're not a lesbian (none / 0) (#27)
	by venalcolony on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 10:50:11 PM PST

	you're a silly geek boy craving attention. Fess up, your prose is toxic with teenage testosterone. --- The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

	I think you're an idiot (none / 0) (#28)
	by koochee girl on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 11:49:11 PM PST

	I know why you don't believe I'm a lesbian. You don't want to believe. I don't like the thought that we have figured out how to do it without you. Firewall Scoreboard

	Nobody cares (none / 0) (#30)
	by osm on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 11:53:28 PM PST

	I've seen one lesbian in my whole life that was attractive. You could go down on a horse for all I care. No big loss.

	Wow, and I thought I was smart when ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
	by pyramid termite on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 06:45:59 AM PST

	... at 13 I figured out how to do it without anybody. He who hides his madman, dies voiceless - Henri Michaux

	heh. "lesbian" (none / 0) (#43)
	by nathan on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 04:22:47 AM PST

	Isn't it great how we can all questions of identity with labels? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	sorry, (none / 0) (#44)
	by nathan on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 04:24:26 AM PST

	That should obviously be "settle all questions..." Humbly yours, Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Allow me to clarify. (none / 0) (#52)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 09:57:15 AM PST

	You're new here. Aren't you.

	Answers (5.00 / 1) (#4)
	by iat on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 08:46:52 AM PST

	Why use the Mandrake installer? Good question. What windowing system does it use? If you mean "does it have a graphical interface?", then the answer is "it doesn't". Everyone knows that Linux has no GUI and is run entirely from the command line. What windows managers does it come with? Haven't you already asked this question? I see the Deluxe Edition is only available through retail sale. What other versions of Executive Linux are available? Just the Deluxe Edition. No executive worth his salt should waste their time with anything less than finest quality deluxe versions of anything. Where can I download the binaries/source? You can't download either. The binaries are shipped on a single compact disk in a mahogany box, and are thus not suitable for electronic delivery. What boot loader is available with this distro? Mandrake Installer. How much of this distro is under the GNU General Public License? None, Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) is proprietary software, distributed exclusively by Adequacy.org. What organization develops this distro? Adequacy? Yes! Why would I need a replacement computer? Adequacy.org cannot guarantee that Linux will not cause irreversible damage to your computer. Therefore, we include a free replacement computer as part of our Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) package. Executive Linux Deluxe Edition from Adequacy The only Linux distro designed by people that don't know anything about [...] computers in general. And how does this make Exectuive Linux (Deluxe Edition) different to any other version of Linux? Please send an email to any of the Adequacy staff if you are interested in purchasing a copy of Adequacy.org's Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) or any other products from the Adequacy store, and we will arrange prompt delivery of your goods. Thank you for your interest in the Adequacy Store. iat, Sales Executive, Adequacy.org Store Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by bc on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 11:22:36 AM PST

	Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) isn't really designed to be installed at all. It is designed to look good on your bookshelf, and give you something hip to talk about by the watercooler with your fellow executives. ♥, bc.

	Wrong answers there iat (none / 0) (#6)
	by NAWL on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 04:19:50 PM PST

	Sorry to tell you but you the answers to the question are wrong, don't make any sense and are just plain SILLY. When ask why this distribution would use the Mandrake installer you simply answered "Good question" yet you didn't state WHY. If you mean "does it have a graphical interface?", then the answer is "it doesn't". Everyone knows that Linux has no GUI and is run entirely from the command line. The question was what WINDOWING SYSTEM. A more correct answer would be Xfree86. Also Linux is a kernel. There is no command line interface until you ad a command interpreter. Same goes for the Windows kernels. Haven't you already asked this question? The question regarding windows managers was NOT already asked. Windows managers include GNOME and KDE. Just the Deluxe Edition. No executive worth his salt should waste their time with anything less than finest quality deluxe versions of anything. Most executives don't know what linux is. Executives doesn't mean they know anything about computers at all. Also no one in there right might would ever purchase a linux distro without further information or the ability to launch a pilot program. You can't download either. The binaries are shipped on a single compact disk in a mahogany box, and are thus not suitable for electronic delivery. Must not be that much of a distribution if it only comes on a single CD. What services and software solutions does it come with? Where's the source code? Mandrake Installer. This was your answer when ask what BOOT LOADER(s) this distribution included. A more correct answer would have been GRUB or Linux Loader (LiLo). None, Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) is proprietary software, distributed exclusively by Adequacy.org. Two things. I hope that it does not include any code under the GNU GPL. Also Linus Torvalds holds the copyright on the name Linux. You cannot legally call it linux and it cannot legal use the linux kernel nor any GPL licensed code. Despite what you think Adequacy nor any other organization has the legal right to tranfer its copyright or license to an already copyrighted or licensed product. Don't make make me point to one of my posts about where Adequacy has done this. If so I will fire it off to the FBI's offices in charge of copyright infringement. Adequacy.org cannot guarantee that Linux will not cause irreversible damage to your computer. Therefore, we include a free replacement computer as part of our Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) package. Damage such as...? Myself and others have already destroyed the Adequacy argument that Linux somehow destroys your hard drive and/or boot partition (which you call the boot block). Just use the fairly simple utility FDISK. And how does this make Exectuive Linux (Deluxe Edition) different to any other version of Linux? Unlike Adequacy they do know a thing or two about computers. IBM for one has invested billions in its Linux Labs in the US and has devoted over $1 million to it's labS else where in the world. Should I point you to the countless number of posts which include lists of companies that have PUBLICLY stated they use linux? NvIDIA now offers linux drivers for its graphics cards. Now you wanna try again to sound halfway intelliegent? Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	I am infallible (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by iat on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 05:00:06 PM PST

	When ask why this distribution would use the Mandrake installer you simply answered "Good question" yet you didn't state WHY. Pardon me, I thought koochee girl was asking a rhetorical question. no one in there right might would ever purchase a linux distro Yes, you said it. Must not be that much of a distribution if it only comes on a single CD. No, Adequacy's Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) is free from the bloat that blights most Lunix distributions. Where's the source code? As I said before, Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) is proprietary software. The source code is not available. I hope that it does not include any code under the GNU GPL No, it doesn't. We have relicensed the code under our own (proprietary) licence. You cannot legally call it linux and it cannot legal use the linux kernel nor any GPL licensed code. Despite what you think Adequacy nor any other organization has the legal right to tranfer its copyright or license to an already copyrighted or licensed product. Don't make make me point to one of my posts about where Adequacy has done this. If so I will fire it off to the FBI's offices in charge of copyright infringement. So sue me. Damage such as...? Myself and others have already destroyed the Adequacy argument that Linux somehow destroys your hard drive and/or boot partition (which you call the boot block). Just use the fairly simple utility FDISK. Congratulations! You've just lost your valuable data! Now, don't you wish you'd installed Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) on the nice new computer we supply free of charge with every copy? Should I point you to the countless number of posts which include lists of companies that have PUBLICLY stated they use linux? Please don't, I'm not sure that my weary old heart could cope with the excitement. Now you wanna try again to sound halfway intelliegent? Sure, you try first. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	this is an open forum... (none / 0) (#10)
	by NAWL on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 05:48:56 PM PST

	therefore I can continue the conversation no one in there right might would ever purchase a linux distro Yeah let's not put the entire sentence there now. But your links are outdated and really make no sense. VA Linux is now moving away from simply providing a home for open source developement. Dell stop selling linux on its desktop because, at the time, linux desktops weren't as popular as they are now. They still continued to sell server running linux. Dell also issued a formal apology to the open source commnunity. You can now request linux on Dell desktop systems. Eazel closed it's doors because it didn't have a solid business plan and the popularity of linux on the desktop was not there yet. Also SuSE has been kicked around quite a bit by the popularity of Red Hat just like other linux companies. I think that if you put that research to good use you'll find that SuSE is doing rather well now, mostly because of their new partnership programs. So sue me. Don't worry about me. Worry about the Free Software Foundation. Worry about Linus Torvalds who owns the trademark for the name (Linux) and leads kernel development. Also worry about MandrakeSoft for using the Mandrake Installer. Congratulations! You've just lost your valuable data! Now, don't you wish you'd installed Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) on the nice new computer we supply free of charge with every copy? First off what does a replacement computer have to do with recoversing my data? Why couldn't I simply use the computer I already had if I wanted to install another OS? Also I am less likely to lose data under a Linux based OS because I don't have to worry about Internet Explorer and Outlook Express exploits for example. Not to mention that just like any network professional I would have backed everything up locally and offsite just as I would with any other OS. You still have yet to explain the need for a complete replacement computer. How does linux screw up a system that I would need an enitrely new computer? Data loss does justify new hardware purchases. Many times it does not justify a complete software change either. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	proprieatry sux (none / 0) (#15)
	by koochee girl on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 06:37:31 PM PST

	I have had more data loss due to closed source software like Windows than an other software on the market. A lot of people want to say that all you have to do is practice good security. Any one else know about the abaility of WindowsXP to disable firewalls? Attention: The Windows Operating System has been designed coming with a possibility to bypass pc firewalls. Although there has been no malware in the wild yet to make advantage of this, it should be regarded as a major possible security risk; putting a firewall completely out of business. For more info about this risk, doubleclick on the following link. A text page will show up. Please press your browsers "back" button after reading firewall vulnerability.txt. As for this moment, all software firewalls are vulnerable, although they are working on new releases/fixes to conquer this vulnerability, except for one: LooknStop. Firewall Scoreboard

	Anecdotes prove nothing (none / 0) (#60)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 11:36:31 AM PST

	Even lots of anecdotes (as you'll find on /.) are meaningless. The fact that you personally have suffered less data loss with linux compared to propriatory software says absolutely nothing at all about the reliability of either linux or propriatory software in general. All it says is that you personally have suffered less data loss using "open source" software compared to propriatory software. Maybe you loose more data with propriatory software because you use it more? Maybe because you use it less and so are not as experienced with it? Are you so arrogant as to believe that because you can install a linux distribution then configuring windows to be stable must be easy? Of course, the language and tone of your post show your complete lack of technical acumen. That you think a problem with firewalls running on WinXP is a serious security problem shows your inexperience in matters of computer security. WinXP is new, AFAIK MS is not telling bussiness to move over from 2k to XP for server/gateway duties which is the only role this hole would really affect, although obviously personal firewalls products are also affected but for the most part personal firewalls really are not neccessary on home windows systems. In short I think your just full of shit. Especially on that entire thread about the GPL being tested in court. Why do big companies make out of court settlements1 when they probably could stand a chance of steamrollering the GPL in court? PR. If you dont understand that a company really will bow down before the public and lose a lot of money even on issues when they are completly in the right, at least legally speaking, then again you are showing how naive you are. Anyway, I hope these responses to your diary cause you to think twice about this site and just leave. I despise linux apologists about as much as the environmentalist lobby, which is quite a lot. Later... -- Nick Charlies all gone... 1 - rarely is an out of court settlement an admittance of guilt, in fact they are useually quite the opposite. The plaintiff useually has to sign an agreement stating that the defendant is not to blame to prevent further legal action on the part of the plaintiff

	think this over (none / 0) (#62)
	by koochee girl on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 01:00:59 PM PST

	Well duh. No corporate IT personnel would rely solely on the built XP firewall to protect the network. However, in you rant you forget about the home user. People with broadband connections are targeted more frequently than corporate networks. Why? Zombie programs DoS and DDoS attacks. Also did I mention my data loss was due to security? Hmmmm? I have lost more data and had more corruption and all I get is a cryptic error message. I have Windows fuck up just running Windows. Firewall Scoreboard

	GPL isn't legal anyway (none / 0) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 07:13:32 PM PST

	Simply put the GPL just won't stand up in any court of law in this country. The only enforcement "tool" they have is to get the slashbots on an email bombing campaign. And of course we have the hypocrisy of claiming the copyrights musicians hold on their own songs are invalid; but that deserves its own separate article.

	Are you dense? (none / 0) (#19)
	by koochee girl on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 07:44:28 PM PST

	The GNU General Public License is as legally binding as any other for of licensing. It is just as binding as the BSD license or any other license for that matter. As for claiming copyrights that a musician holds being invalid you are right. Many times the recording companies feel they can do whatever they want with it. That's why I never pursued a music career. All I need is some someone selling my stuff to some half-assed group. Then seeing ads for "Kids Butchering Song Vol 1". Firewall Scoreboard

	oh, you're so macho certain about the world (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 07:59:29 PM PST

	The GNU General Public License is as legally binding as any other for of licensing. It is trivial to write licenses which arent enforceable. The GPL may be one of them. Not even RMS can tell you differently until such time as it passes the test of court, an exercise the FSF has assiduously avoided. Now you may ask yourself why hasnt the FSF tested its license? After all, a postive court outcome would completely legitimize the license and erase all lingering doubts of its enforceability. But you'd have to smart to raise this question, instead of filled with false certainty for the FSF party line. (It seems perfectly valid but then again, who would have thought the Court would ever appoint the United States President? Law is a funny, reactionary thing.)

	they can enforce it (none / 0) (#23)
	by koochee girl on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 08:50:56 PM PST

	You think that no cases of infringement on the license has ever gone to court? Mattel seems to think the same as you. Check this out. And this Here's another You remind me of Bill Gates. Like to make things up as you go don't ya? Firewall Scoreboard

	You remind me of an idiot. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 10:44:36 PM PST

	Where exactly is it reported in your links that the GPL has been tested in court? That's right, nowhere. Do you know why? Because it hasnt been tested in court.

	really (none / 0) (#29)
	by koochee girl on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 11:51:42 PM PST

	So the link that points to Mattel's court case has nothing to do with the GNU GPL? I think you should go back and look. Firewall Scoreboard

	Hey! (none / 0) (#31)
	by elenchos on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 12:10:44 AM PST

	Don't post lies on Adequacy! Any fool can see that the only thing that happened in court was that Mattel "said during a court hearing here that it had acquired intellectual property rights to a program that reveals Cyberpatrol's secret list of off-limits websites and settled the case. Mattel said it planned to use its new copyright in court to ban Internet copying of the "cphack" utility." So Mattel said it plans to enforce it's well established rights under traditional copyright law in a hearing. WHERE is this radical new GPL being tested in court? I see nothing saying it was tested. If it was, why don't you report the outcome? Was it upheld? You don't know, because the GPL WASN'T TESTED IN COURT! Maybe you think it will be tested, but lots of people have thought that, and what has happened? Nothing. Why? Because no GPL fanatic wants to face having their bubble burst, so they'd rather continue the charade a little longer. Your pattern of posting nonsense with the intent to confuse has been noted and you will be watched carefully. Please have more respect for Adequacy and it's impressionable readers. Thank you. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	clarification (none / 0) (#36)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:05:18 AM PST

	But cphack's authors released it under the GNU General Public License, which appears to permit unlimited distribution of the original cphack program, even if Mattel now owns the copyright. "GPL is software that cannot be revoked," said Eben Moglen, a law professor at Columbia University and FSF general counsel. "Anyone downstream who possesses a copy of the software may redistribute it." A spokeswoman for Mattel reached late Monday said she didn't know what the effect of the GPL would be. Should have done a little research then shouldn't they? But she said cphack authors Eddy Jansson and Matthew Skala had signed a contract with Mattel and if there was any deception, "they'd be in big trouble." Was it their fault or Mattel's for not checking the existing license? Elenchos if you really want to know the outcome I will tell you. However, you must promise to read it carefully. I saw your response to a post regarding MS settling out of court with Gary Kildall. Your post claimed MS had won when in fact THEY were the ones who settled out of court which meant that admitted wrong doing. As reported the 2 programmers became tired of how Mattel was dragging out the case with their blah blah blah's and such. In a move that shocked their counsel they made a bold decision. The 2 programmers tired of the BS removed the code from the GPL (THEY can do this) and gave the rights to Mattel. The Judge ordered that Mattel not seek out the mirror sites as they recieved the code while it was under the GNU GPL. ____________________________________________________________________________ The simple truth is, is that most GPL volations never make it to court. Notice I said MOST. Even big name corporations like NVIDIA dare not challenge the GNU GPL. They simply make the necessary corrections and that's it. Rich Black of nVidia: I think it's one of those things where our corporate rule is that we do not open up our code, and we do not have open code, and we will not do that. That's fine, and that's understandable, but you're in the position that you're either going to have to open it up completely, or not use it at all. Waiting until next revision and then saying, 'Oh, well, it's fixed now' is a bit of a problem, because right now you're in violation. RB: Right, which we understand, and it will be taken care of within the next one to two weeks. I understand we're in violation of that now, and it was something that was done strictly as a mistake on our part, and somebody was going through writing some code, and it was completely done on accident. It was not a known violation at the time, it was something that he is aware of now, and is seeking to alleviate the situation and take care of it. I guess I can't change anything about how we are in violation of the GPL right now, but it's something we are going to take care of as soon as possible. With the next version of the software, we'll take care of that, and we'll no longer be in violation. The only exception they have made are the drivers for Linux which you can download here Excerpt from nVidia's Software License 2.1.2 Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files) Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Oh dear (none / 0) (#40)
	by iat on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:25:45 AM PST

	I don't have time to respond to your whole post (elenchos has more of an appetite for pointing out the shortcomings of the GPL than I do, so I'll leave it to him) but I have to take issue with this point. "GPL is software that cannot be revoked," said Eben Moglen, a law professor at Columbia University and FSF general counsel. "Anyone downstream who possesses a copy of the software may redistribute it." Just because Eben Moglen, the FSF's pet lawyer, says something, does that make it true? He's (presumably) being paid by the FSF to give legal counsel, so he's hardly going to say "The GPL is legally shaky, because it's never been tested in court". If a single lawyer was to start unilaterally deciding the law without first taking things through the proper channels (e.g. the courts), I'm sure you and the rest of Linux "community" would be the first to be up in arms about it. Why is this case any different? The truth is that he doesn't know if the GPL is enforceable, no-one does. Until the GPL has been successfully tested in court, no-one can guarantee that it's enforceable. At least try to develop some sort of ability to analyse what you read, so that you can decided whether people are speaking the truth or not. Realise that things are rarely black and white and that everyone has their own agenda. Realise that the open source "community" are just as capable of lieing and deceiving as your favourite manufacturers of proprietary software. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	reallly? (none / 0) (#42)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 03:25:48 AM PST

	Realise that the open source "community" are just as capable of lieing and deceiving as your favourite manufacturers of proprietary software. It doesn't matter what camp you are from. It's human nature. The simple truth however, is that many a times incidents involving the GNU GPL don't go to court because many developers believe it means they will have to make the product open source. The GNU GPL is not the only copyright/license/trademark or what not to be defeated in certain cases. The example I gave in a previous post is a good. Microsoft feels she did wrong. That's just stupid. If I sell someone pirated software, but don't tell them it's pirated and they install it...should they go to jail? Adobe got caught up in this. A software vendor was purchasing Adobe softwre bundles then selling of the indivdual pieces. Adobe claimed he was breaking the law. A federal judge said otherwise. Microsoft is now is disputes over a linux startup set to release a distro called Lindows (because it runs Linux software and most Windows-based software). MS has been throwing fits for awhile now, Does that mean their trademark, or their copyright isn't worth the paper it's printed on? No. It's funny, they never said anything about WinLinux2000. Basically every license, trademark, or copyright can be defeated under certain conditions. It doesn't mean that the GPL or otherwise is shit. Most companies adhere to it. If someone violates it, they try to correct it. Either that or they look for any tiny loophole they can exploit. In most cases it's not a violation of whatever copyright, license, or trademark. What it comes down to is a bunch of lawyers slamming their dicks on the table to see who's bigger. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	This is a variation on the LFT. (none / 0) (#56)
	by elenchos on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 05:57:21 PM PST

	When I ask, "Will Lunix let me do X?", though the correct anwswer may be, "No", the Lunixists will instead launch into a frothing diatribe against Micro-Soft, the US patent system, some supposed crime committed over hardware drivers by someone or other, the long history of injustice against all types of weirdos and mistfits, and ending perhaps with a complaint about how your father didn't love you enough. And then you say that I shouldn't even want to really do X anyway. Anything rather than that simple "No, Lunix won't work" answer, even if it means a few lies here and there. Anything for The Cause, right? So now, when you ought to just say, "You're right, the GPL has never been tested in court", you instead launch into all sorts of excuses and explanations as to your own private theory that serves as a one-size-fits-all way of explaining away what you don't want to just adimit. It hasn't been tested. Just admit it, OK, and save the excuses and spin doctoring for after the basic facts have been established. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	I'm sorry, I understand english. (none / 0) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 12:16:04 AM PST

	And therefore I have you at a great disadvantage. First, there was no judgement in the Mattel suit, there was a settlement. Secondly, Bennett Haselton of Peacefire is not a judge, he is Benny, expressing an out of court disagreement with the settlement in the pages of the thoroughly inadequate wired magazine.

	You will also note... (none / 0) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 01:28:41 AM PST

	that Benny was content to fan the usual FSF rhetoric about mattel's violation of the GPL -- as if anything the FSF says carries the weight of law -- instead of promising to sue Mattel into submission and overturn their victorious settlement on the strength of the GPL. Typical FSF brow beating meant to impress lesbians and other malcontents. As if.

	think you need to check out the FSF (none / 0) (#38)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:19:06 AM PST

	The Free Software Foundation, rounded by Richard Stallman in 1984, does not enforce the GNU GPL. It is more of a watchdog. However, like other organizations it cannot be on top of everything. Stallman and those involved with the GNU project are however. Microsoft, as an example, is not always involved. MS has a history of going after the wrong person. One example (I will try to find the link) is with a woman who owned a software shop. Her distributor had sold here illegal copies of Windows. She was not aware of this, as they were GOOD copies. Microsoft tried to sue her. She on the other hand proved her case and sued MS. Many times distributors violate copyright laws. Sometimes their clients notice it and report them to organizations like the FBI. Microsoft may or may not be involved even though the distributor was infringing on their copyright. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	you've said precisely nothing (none / 0) (#46)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 08:46:36 AM PST

	You seem to have assumed the mantle of printer boy around here (tech "expert" to your friends) but you mustnt be so eager to spin every dismal factoid in the Lunix dogma for the benefit of the adequately employed in the audience. We are adequate because we understand english sentences. We can do this completely unaided thank-you very much. [The FSF] does not enforce the GNU GPL. It is more of a watchdog. For the record, the FSF encourages programmers to assign their copyright to the FSF as a legal strategy. Their thinking is that individual programmers do not have the wherewithal to protect their IP but the FSF does. We already know the FSF's legal protection amounts to shrill yelping instead of courtroom argument; that was posted several comments ago by at least 3 different people. Keep up the good work. I for one, cannot get enough accurate GUN/Lunix information.

	License != copyright (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 12:54:07 AM PST

	The GPL is a license and not a copyright (GPC maybe?) and attempts to employ it's draconian restrictions on what a user can do with the code. The fact remains however that no amount of foot stomping will make the GPL into anything more than a pathetic little political statement.

	Legal binding (none / 0) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 09:26:01 PM PST

	It is just as binding as the BSD license or any other license for that matter. Exactly... None of them have any legal binding. You can enter into a contract by the traditional way of signing or through a purchase agreement (money changing hands in exhange for something). `tar xvzf halfassed-gpl-prog.tar.gz` would certainly have no legal binding for the end user.

	Yawn (5.00 / 1) (#37)
	by iat on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:11:39 AM PST

	But your links are outdated and really make no sense. The links are all from stories within the past year, they're hardly outdated. Does a link have to have been published within the previous 24 hours to be deemed acceptable by you? Let's look at the evidence that no-one is buying Linux (all of these events happened within 2001): VA Linux stops selling hardware with Linux installed. Why? Because it wasn't making sufficient money to be a viable business. Instead, they're selling proprietary closed source sofware (just like our friends at Microsoft do) to try to achieve profitability. The company making Storm Linux closes its doors. Why? They were not selling enough copies to make an acceptable profit. SuSE Linux retrenches, with workers in the USA made redundant. Why? They were not selling enough copies to make an acceptable profit. Dell stops shipping desktop machines with Linux pre-installed. Why? They were not selling enough machines to make an acceptable profit. Loki Software, the people who port Windows games to Linux hits financial problems. Why? Because not only do people not want to pay money for Linux, they won't pay for Linux software either. Eazel shuts its doors. Why? Because there isn't a sufficient Linux user base who are willing to pay for software. Make all the excuses for these facts that you like, you're clearly a dedicated Linux apologist and there's no way I'm ever going to convince you otherwise. But let me make this clear: Linux is not the revolution. It has had plenty of time to take the world by storm and Linux's moment has always been "just around the corner". If Linux was going to "happen", it surely would have done to some noticeable extent by now. Linux will never achieve mainstream acceptability. Just like the Commodore Amiga, it will eventually wither and die. Mark my words. > So sue me. Don't worry about me. Worry about the Free Software Foundation. Worry about Linus Torvalds who owns the trademark for the name (Linux) and leads kernel development. Also worry about MandrakeSoft for using the Mandrake Installer. No, you quite specifically said that you, NAWL, were going to report us to the FBI. I've called your bluff. Now, put up or shut up. First off what does a replacement computer have to do with recoversing my data? and You still have yet to explain the need for a complete replacement computer. Which part of my post didn't you understand. Just how much do I have to spell things out to you before you can understand them? I'll reprint it here for you: "don't you wish you'd installed Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) on the nice new computer we supply free of charge with every copy?" You are meant to install Executive Linux (Deluxe Edition) on the new computer, ensuring that Linux doesn't get anywhere your valuable data, preempting the need to issue the "fdisk" command (to either repartition before installing Linux, or to remove Linux when you've finished) and thus preventing the resulting loss of data. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	A-ha! (none / 0) (#53)
	by nx01 on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 10:43:07 AM PST

	Dell stop selling linux on its desktop because, at the time, linux desktops weren't as popular as they are now. I see we have a comedian in our midst! Welcome to adequacy! "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it." -- James Gosling

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.