Linux-Advocacy Digest #406, Volume #25 Sat, 26 Feb 00 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Damien)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Chad Myers")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Damien)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Cliff Wagner)
Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times ("Colin R. Day")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (asrmj)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (asrmj)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Anders Larsen)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (asrmj)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (asrmj)
Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The latest from IDC ( Was Re: Linux sales. ) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Nigel Feltham")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 Feb 2000 21:14:31 GMT
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 18:17:30 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
| >> And MS enforces upgrades by drastically changing the word
| >> document format every time they release office.
|
| No. The last format change was several years ago, the one before that
| almost a decade. And an upgrade is not necessary to support the new
| format -- converters and filter have been made available shortly after
| release (and if that's not soon enough, the formats are publicly
| documented prior to release, so one could code zir own.)
Perhaps you can point me to this file that documents Word doc formats.
I know a lot of people who would be interested in it, including the
Word Perfect division of Corel. Their Word document filter suck @$$
to say the least.
--Damien "who is ready to put 'write a Word doc filter' on his project list"
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:20:29 GMT
"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:56:33 +0000, Jason typed something like:
> >Netscape screwed themselves over with 4.0, the codebase is unstable, and with
no
> >support for ActiveX...
> >
> >-J
>
> No support for ActiveX is a bad thing?
Yes, it's a bad thing.
If you don't know why, then perhaps you should do some research.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 Feb 2000 21:37:41 GMT
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:20:29 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > No support for ActiveX is a bad thing?
|
| Yes, it's a bad thing.
|
| If you don't know why, then perhaps you should do some research.
ActiveX: Proprietary client-side scripting introduced by Microsoft.
Has numerous documented security holes and poor security design in
general.
ActivX is a Bad thing(tm)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: 26 Feb 2000 21:36:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:20:29 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
>
>"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 09:56:33 +0000, Jason typed something like:
>> >Netscape screwed themselves over with 4.0, the codebase is unstable, and with
>no
>> >support for ActiveX...
>> >
>> >-J
>>
>> No support for ActiveX is a bad thing?
>
>Yes, it's a bad thing.
>
>If you don't know why, then perhaps you should do some research.
>
>-Chad
I'd rather avoid the security flaws inherent to ActiveX and
stick with what already works.
See: Microsoft Active Setup
So what would possess me to need ActiveX over other technologies?
Aside from vendor lock of course.
-c-
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:51:36 +0000
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Can you delegate the access and/or modification of a specific
> > > section of the conf file to a sub-administrator?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, by using an appropriate group and changing the file's group
> > to that one.
>
> To a specific section? Like if you had
>
> myexample.rc
>
> ;Section1
> config1=blah
> config2=blah
> config3=blah
>
> 'Section2
> config4=blah
> config5=blah
> config6=blah
>
> How would you secure Section2? How would you secure config6?
Why would the subadministrator need write permission for only part of
a file?
>
>
> -Chad
--
Shhh! Be vewy quiet. We're hunting penguins. -- Elmer FUD
------------------------------
From: asrmj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:43:45 +0000
Rob Hughes wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 07:44:56 -0800, petilon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :>>
> :>> The Windows 2000 setup program can't set up a SCSI system
> :>> properly. Admit it. It is not my job to edit the boot.ini
> :>> file. It is the setup program's job. Setup should have used
> :>> scsi() syntax for drives connected to the SCSI adapter.
> :>
> :> You're contradicting yourself, Windows 2000 installed and run
> :> correctly based upon the hardware configuration at the time of
> :> the setup. Changing the hardware configuration would require
> :> to edit the boot.ini, or you should've setup the system as
> :> scsi() instead of multi().
> :
> :But I didn't change the hardware configuration!! That's the
> :whole point! All I did was to turn on/off another SCSI device!
> :To me that's not a change in hardware configuration. But to
> :you DOS people this apparently is a change in hardware
> :configuration! Unbelievable! When will you guys ever learn
> :about SCSI?
>
> If you turn on, or add a device, you are changing the hardware config.
> Its really that simple.
Simple is what this self-assured affirmation shows: you simply don't
know about proper SCSI functionality. Under SCSI standards devices other
than boot devices are supposed to be addable / subtractable at will. Not
only disks, of course. Have you thought about scanners, for example?
>
> :In Windows land you guys are so used to rebooting and
> :reinstalling and reconfiguring that your expectations from
> :an enterprise OS are extremely low.
>
> Mine are pretty high. That's why I only use NT for departmental app
> servers.
>
Your problem.
> :All I can say is, venture outside Windows land once in a while
> :and take a look at other operating systems. I assure you it will
> :forever change the way you see Microsoft operating systems.
> :
> I'm there all the time.
> :
> :* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> :The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
asrmj
------------------------------
From: asrmj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:52:44 +0000
fred wrote:
>
> On 20 Feb 2000 17:20:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) wrote:
>
> >Its changing hardware configuration, yes. But it should not matter one
> >whit for devices which already existed on the chain whos IDs do not change.
>
> And it will not if you use the scsi() naming convention in the
> boot.ini.
>
> I suspect if he had installed the system with the Zip drive in place
> to begin with, he would not have this issue. Or if he had arranged
> his SCSI ID's properly to begin with, he would not have this issue.
Wrong. SCSI devices are supposed to be detected by the operating system
at boot (and SCSI IDs assigned to them from the OS point of view), and
if the OS is really good then all this should be reconfigurable during
functioning. It's the whole difference between IDE and SCSI (and fibre
channel, and USB...). If you still have to monkey around with stupid
installs and reinstalls then the operating system is unusable. It is
obviously the operating system's fault. I was not expecting this
continued ignorance level from the ms crowd (sorry). These postings have
been very informative. Send more.
asrmj
------------------------------
From: Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:06:09 +0100
Mario Klebsch wrote:
>
> Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >If the Windows ABI is really such a "well defined subset", how come
> >that's not common knownledge (except, perhaps, within Microsoft, Inc.) ?
>
> The absense of common knowledge about the OSes from Microsoft always
> irritated me. After switching from CP/M-80 to MS-DOS, I was loocking
> for the manuals describing the interface of the OS for years! They
> were included in CP/M, but were missing in MS-DOS. I finally gave up
> and til today I did not find those manuals.
That really confirms my suspicion.
You talk a lot about a "Windows ABI", but if documentation of it is not
available, then, as a consequence, that "ABI" is nothing but hot air.
--
Anders Larsen
------------------------------
From: asrmj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:00:02 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I liked how you put that (TM) in there to make this message
> >> > sound legit.
> >> >
> >> > Your description sounds like bullshit to me. Try again.
> >>
> >> You really are the biggest arsehole on this newsgroup.
> >
> > allow me to suggest: go fuck yourself.
>
> If only I could I would be flattered. :-)
>
> You M$ guys just don't understand how scsi works. Here was a guy who
> couldn't boot his sytsem when he powered on a scsi device which had a
> different scsi id from the other devices on the scsi chain. M$ have
> screwed up here. Why they can't handle scsi devices like everyone else
> is unbelievable. Many complaints against M$ are due to their marketing
> people dictating what the system should do. Here is a case of a pure
> s/w design cockup. Who in their right mind will deploy any M$ is a
> company critical environment?
>
> Drestin, to stop making a complete fool of yourself any more please
> desist from posting until you know what you are talking about.
My theory: Drestin is an ms artificial stupidity drone. Not a real
human, but a BOT designed to smother all valid ms criticism once spotted
in a ng. I will never answer to a Drestin post, it's no use because it
wouldn't listen anyway.
asrmj
------------------------------
From: asrmj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:05:06 +0000
Rob Hughes wrote:
>
> "petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred) wrote:
> > >
> <various delitia>
>
> > Once again, I wish to make it clear that I am not just looking
> > for 'advice for my problem.' That's not what advocacy newsgroups
> > are for.
> >
> Then please provide the additional technical details that have been
> requested several times now so that this can move from speculation to
> diagnosis.
>
I can't believe this! What "technical details" have not already been
made clear?
asrmj
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:55:21 GMT
The more I think about it, and the more virulent the commetns made in here
against linux, the more it becomes clear that the only reason there are people in
NGs arguing against the widespread acceptance of linux is a financial tie to ms.
Why would anyone be against gettings something for free, that they can change as
they see fit, that offers exactly the same amount of tech support but instills
more confidence than the current expensive option availpable?
Let's see now:
-windows is expensive, bloated, and difficult to use. MS is highly resistant to
working with customers to make changes and make using a computer easier.
-linux is free, and completely malleable. It is simply a matter of time before
an appealing GUI is placed on top of it to allow neophytes to comfortably make
use of it.
And again, any bugs in linux are quickly eradicated, while windows users are at
the mecy of ms to repair them, assuming ms even fesses up to their existance. It
is typical of ms to deny them or their culpability, as they consistently,
wretchedly blame the user's incompetence or the other app manufacturer for
"improperly written software." Assuming ms even bothered to publish the
necessary apis to even allow for development.
Personally, I prefer free and stabile over expensive and bloated.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The latest from IDC ( Was Re: Linux sales. )
Date: 26 Feb 2000 23:09:03 GMT
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:05:12 GMT, Greg Copeland wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
[ snip: something about RHAT getting a lot of venture capital ]
I'd have to agree that these companies have generated a lot of venture
capital, and this will not only give them some room to experiment, but
also they can outright swallow smaller ( market cap-wise ) companies that
are generating profits.
>If it's offered in such a way that it is supported by a logical manner,
>I'd beg to differ. Otherwise, no one would ever be able to make a
>forward looking statement. To that end, it would make it difficult to even
> make basic trend analysis in many cases.
I disagree with this line of reasoning. Trend analysis is not about
drawing conclusions from events that might happen, it's about drawing
probable conclusions from events that have already happened.
>Okay, let me put it this way. Very simply put. They are creating a market
>to leverage for other business models. You will surely agree that having
>a foot in the door is the first start to any successful business. This is
>what they are wanting to leverage. If you have Corel Linux, when why not use
>other Corel products. This is a common tactic that other companies use in
>more mainstream models (Microsoft being one of them; OS and apps).
Corel's business strategy does admittedly have the distinction that it really
does sound like a workable strategy ( though it does rely on traditional
methods for obtaining income ). One thing I heard about Corel that sounded
interesting is that ( IIRC ) they claimed that 10% of their revenues were
coming from Linux. If this is true, it's very promising at this early stage.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:37:24 -0000
I wish people would stop arguing over which operating system is best and
just let all operating systems exist in harmony.
I thought the whole point of linux was to give users a choice as to which
system to run on their machines.
If linux users force all users to use their system then they are becoming as
bad as the mighty microsloth.
Lets just make sure all computer users know that there is more than 1 choice
out there and let them decide whether to run MS Windblows or Linux (or even
Beos or Mac OS or good old msdos / calera dos).
And before anyone accuses me of being financially connected to microsoft let
me just add that I hate their unstable operating systems as much ay you do
and my home PC is dual-boot win98 / Linux (may also add Beos now it is going
to be free) but I do beleive in letting users make up their own minds
without being forced to run what everyone thinks they should run (same with
the Linux KDE / Gnome / Afterstep desktop manager choice).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>The more I think about it, and the more virulent the commetns made in here
>against linux, the more it becomes clear that the only reason there are
people in
>NGs arguing against the widespread acceptance of linux is a financial tie
to ms.
>
>Why would anyone be against gettings something for free, that they can
change as
>they see fit, that offers exactly the same amount of tech support but
instills
>more confidence than the current expensive option availpable?
>
>Let's see now:
>
>-windows is expensive, bloated, and difficult to use. MS is highly
resistant to
>working with customers to make changes and make using a computer easier.
>
>-linux is free, and completely malleable. It is simply a matter of time
before
>an appealing GUI is placed on top of it to allow neophytes to comfortably
make
>use of it.
>
>And again, any bugs in linux are quickly eradicated, while windows users
are at
>the mecy of ms to repair them, assuming ms even fesses up to their
existance. It
>is typical of ms to deny them or their culpability, as they consistently,
>wretchedly blame the user's incompetence or the other app manufacturer for
>"improperly written software." Assuming ms even bothered to publish the
>necessary apis to even allow for development.
>
>Personally, I prefer free and stabile over expensive and bloated.
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
