Linux-Advocacy Digest #419, Volume #25 Sun, 27 Feb 00 20:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet Censorship
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_B=2E_Perls=F8?=)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (david parsons)
Re: Giving up on NT ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Mig Mig)
Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mig Mig)
Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (George Marengo)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Mig Mig)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (void)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: A Trip to the Store (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_B=2E_Perls=F8?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet
Censorship
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 22:42:05 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kindness, tolerance, Civil rights?
>
>
> How about teaching them the truth, which is the gay male condones sticking
> his dick up another mans ass. Tell it like it really is Bilk, don't try and
> sugar coat it.
> Women wearing dildo's to compensate for a man's penis.
>
> How about:
<snip>
Eh... guys, haven't this debate gotten sorta... out of hand? I mean from
Linux vs. Windows to hardcore gay porn... whoa, who said nerds didn't
have a sex life?
:)
--
Best Regards, Peter B. Perlsø - http://www.titancity.com
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM - all the reasons you need to get a Mac...
If you wish to mail me, use this address:
p b p (at) a d r (dot) d k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 27 Feb 2000 21:53:02 GMT
>( well, that's really nice, but did anyone buy
>> it ? You don't make money by having people download your software )
They made 20USD off of me.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
"New Windows feature: distributed.microsoft.com-- Fifty million machines
generating random C code in an attempt to produce the next version of Windows."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: 27 Feb 2000 22:19:45 GMT
>What do you recommend in place of ActiveX? Java? Hahahaha.... that's
>funny.
>
>Please, tell us what you know of ActiveX and why it's "crap".
ActiveX, Java, etc. are all undesirable. Expecting client-side intelligence
doesn't work on the Internet (incl. the www) because of its uncontrolled
nature. A given applet may give the right response, the wrong response, or no
response, depending on environment and configuration. This is a major
negative. Instead, the intelligence should remain on the server end, expecting
no more from a browser than the ability to submit a filled-out form.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
"New Windows feature: distributed.microsoft.com-- Fifty million machines
generating random C code in an attempt to produce the next version of Windows."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 27 Feb 2000 13:09:37 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh really? Think again. MOST banks use windows in their branches almost
>exclusively.
As terminals with client software, yes. This is important (in many
ways, it's a lot more important than the stack of mainframes or Unix
machines they use to maintain the banking records) but it won't kill
the bank if one of them smokes.
____
david parsons \bi/ If the stack of Linux boxes in my server room dies,
\/ it would be a fairly unpleasant experience.
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:38:45 +0100
Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "josco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, [iso-8859-1] Paul 'Z' Ewande© wrote:
> > >
> > > > <SNIP> Some stuff about QT and Windows </SNIP>
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't it occur to you that maybe QT is better optimised for the
Mac
> > than
> > > > it is for Windows ?
> > >
> > > QT? No way!
> >
> > Why not ? I experience no problems with Windows Media Player.
> >
> > > QT wouldn't impact TCP/IP unless the OS let it which measn the OS has
a
> > > problem. QT runs fine but the downloads crawl, dowloads are part of
the OS
> > > and they are, should be multitasked.
> >
> > Or the app is programmed the way it should.
> >
> <snip>
> > > Downloads are NOT computationally demanding. They require good
> > > multitasking. Win95 isn't a good OS for multitasking. That is my
point.
> >
> > My point is _maybe_ the app is just a bad port from the MacOS since I
don't
> > experience the problem you describe while using th e Windows Media
Player.
> >
> > I can burn CD with Nero on my Win98 box [not Win95 I grant you but it
can't
> > be that different] and listen to MP3, surf the web, download stuff all
at
> > the same time.
> >
> > On the Mac I use at work, with OS 8.6, when Adaptec Toast is running,
even
> > the _time_ is not updated.
> >
> > The Mac better multitasker than Windows 9x, definitely not IME.
>
> Ahu. So Quicktime for Windows is programmed badly, and it's the app's
> fault. Toast on the Mac however is programmed perfectly and it's the OS'
> fault. Yup, that must be it.
I don't know, you tell me. You try to copy a great bunch of files, and press
a menu and the file copy stops.
I launch two copies at the same time, as soon as I put the in the background
to do something else [watching a progress bar is not my I idea of thrill]
and boom, down goes the performance.
I guess then that the copy file function/and or the finder menu is broken
then.
Can you give me the name of a good CD burner software/ MP3 listener that I
can use simultaneously ?
I can use Windows Media Player and do many other things at the same time.
I can zip and unzip simutaneously many files big files [we are talking
50+Mb here] while cmofortably listening to MP3, with many instances of
explorer open and downloading stuff.
To sum up, with each and any application i've used on the Mac, I've been
beating with multitasking issues. While, on Windows9x, i experience none of
these multitasking issues [I don't use QT].
So IME, I repeat IME, multitasking on the Mac is far from great with
different sets of applications/tasks.
If it's not the fault of the OS, then many of the Mac apps are not so
brilliantly coded. Happy now ?
> Lars T
Paul 'Z' Ewande.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:31:15 +0100
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "No Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:895qt8$4hr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:17:24 -0500, Drestin Black said:
> > >
> > >"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:8940np$5pc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Whats Linux got to do with it?
> > >>
> > >> They have had several years to do this and have been incapable of doing
> > >it.
> > >> If they want to have companies to use W2K, then they must show that
> their
> > >> own high volume sites can run on NT/W2K.
> > >
> > >Um, - they exactly do do that. Some of the highest volume sites in the
> > >world,
> >
> > Did you say some? Yes, I thought so.
>
> I should have written most but I would not write all. Of course.
>
> >
> > > the most mission critical business e-dollars ride on NT/IIS.
> >
> > Like where? I'll just give you an example: most banks don't even think
> > about windows for their important operations. Ready.
>
> Oh really? Think again. MOST banks use windows in their branches almost
> exclusively. Do you consider Prudential a small "banking" operation? 60,000
> copies of W2K pro going on-line during these first 6 months (10,000
> laptops). I think it's time you visit your banks again.
Strange .. here the banks seem to nearly exclusively run on OS/2.. so do
the insurance companys. The backend is still the old mainframes....suppose
its the same in the states... otherwise i dont understand why COBOL still
is used so much.
> >
> > > They've
> > >already proven the point to everyone except those in COLA.
> > >
> >
> > No, they have not. Just read the specialized press (Not WindowsMag, or
> > EasyComputing please) and you will find that many specialists don't
> > trust NT as a wide enterprise server. It can work as a server for small
> > businesses or for big businesses but serving a limited amount of services
> > (your e-mail server, yes, its is good enough for that).
>
> Actually - it's the other way around. NT is trusted in big companies where
> money matters. You'll find apache and bsd in small ISPs where two things
> matter #1) low price and #2) bulk produced/mass packaged and managed virtual
> hosts.
Bullshit , Bullshit, Bullshit.... You would love that... but look at the
facts Apache and Netscape are used in increasing numbers .. IIS is
decreasing.... IIS will probably be more or less dead 12 months after the
release og Apache 2.0.. thats my prediction :-)
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:36:27 +0100
Boris wrote:
> I was downloading Winzip recently and I noticed that it was from cdrom.com (I didn't
>go to
> cdrom.com; I just searched Yahoo for Winzip and clicked on url returned by the
>search).
> One interesting observation: download speed was ~3KB per second. Our corporate pipe
>at
> work provides speeds >100 KB per second, so it looked like the bottleneck was on
>cdrom.com
> site. This speed was ok for Winzip (which is only 2-3MB in size) but I cannot imagine
> anybody being patient enough to download smthg > 10 MB at such low speed.
>
> Boris
So when i try to access www.microsoft.com/technet and i download the page
with less than 1 KB/s (after decompression), on a 500 KB/s pipe then
microsoft are slow as hell?? It couldnt be a router somewhere in between?
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 22:40:32 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:27:20 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is - as far as I know - cdrom.com's record-breaking day
>> http://www.cdrom.com/press/wcarchive_milestone.phtml
>>
>so they finally had a single terrabyte day ...
I guess you conveniently missed the part where it said "...from a
single server machine."
Please give a reference to when Microsoft had a terabyte day
off of a _single_ machine, rather than the server farm that they
normally have running. I won't be holding my breath...
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:42:06 +0100
Marada C. Shradrakaii wrote:
> >What do you recommend in place of ActiveX? Java? Hahahaha.... that's
> >funny.
> >
> >Please, tell us what you know of ActiveX and why it's "crap".
>
> ActiveX, Java, etc. are all undesirable. Expecting client-side intelligence
> doesn't work on the Internet (incl. the www) because of its uncontrolled
> nature. A given applet may give the right response, the wrong response, or no
> response, depending on environment and configuration. This is a major
> negative. Instead, the intelligence should remain on the server end, expecting
> no more from a browser than the ability to submit a filled-out form.
This is wrong.... you would allways want to distribute complexety where
possible.. this way the servers work more effectively.
The fact that ActiveX and security are separate "things " is another story
(just think about the ActiveSetup security bug discovered this week)
Greetings
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: 27 Feb 2000 22:34:34 GMT
On 27 Feb 2000 11:39:44 GMT, Nick Manka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>That I'd like to see. Merced is still only available in engineering
>samples and won't be produced in useful numbers till later this
>year and MS no longer supports the Alpha since Compaq decided to
>stop funding them.
>
>Sort of cuts the available platforms down to zero.
Maybe they got it running on UltraSPARC. ;-)
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 00:13:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: BTW, are you going to say with a straight face that you think all software
: should be funded via government money, ie your tax dollars ? I though
: libertarians didn't believe in taxes or governments controlling the means
: of production.
Libertarians oppose the initiation of force and fraud.
Since not all forms of taxation or collective ownership are coercive
and/or fraudulent, it does *not* follow that libertarians are opposed
to all taxes or all forms of collective ownership.
There are a considerable number of points on which libertarians and
socialists can agree, especially once one gets past the rather strange
yet popular notion that "society" == "government."
The *desirability* of collective ownership of at least some kinds of
software may be one of those points.
The idea that ALL software should be collectively owned is not,
because, aside from being patently absurd (most software is actually
written and deployed in-house), it implies that force and/or fraud
should be initiated against those who try to write software without
contributing it to the public domain. Even if socialists could live
with that notion, libertarians quite obviously could not.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: A Trip to the Store
Date: 28 Feb 2000 00:30:33 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 07:10:33 -0500, Jeff Szarka wrote:
>Yea... I guess I did. Damn me for buying semi-modern hardware and
>expecting Linux to support it.
I don't know why you keep repeating this trash.
AGAIN:
(a) There exists semi modern hardware ( and even state of the art hardware )
that works with Linux
(b) There exists semi modern hardware that does *not* work with Linux.
(c) There exists modern hardware that does not work with Windows.
>Yes, I certainly am clever. I rigged an install of Linux by simply
>using modern/popular hardware. Exactly what does this prove? Yep,
>that's it. Linux is totally incapable of handling semi-modern, popular
>hardware.
To me it sounded like a case of "bad faith". I don't know why you
bothered trying to install Linux, but my guess is that you tried so
that you could find something wrong and then whine about it.
Speaking for myself, I have semi modern ( actually, modern at the time
I did the install ) hardware, and it works just fine. I put it to
you that the reason why you couldn't get it working boils down mostly
to bad faith.
>**Note, the above was sarcasm. The hardware in my system was chosen
>mainly on price/performence and compatibility with NT/Win2k. Mark's
Well that's a really dumb criterion to use for selecting hardware for
use with Linux, isn't it ?
>claims however that I did rig it does show clearly that Linux can't
>even support some basic, semi-modern.
It shows no such thing.
And the very fact that I am running semi modern hardware with Linux
proves that your statement is a lie ( I would have merely said "your
statement is false" but when you repeat a false statement after it
has been refuted, it becomes a "lie". )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: 28 Feb 2000 00:32:34 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:54:12 -0500, Jeff Szarka wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:47:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr) wrote:
>
>:
>:Total sales of shrink-warp Windows 2000 in major retail stores
>:has not exceeded 100 in the greater Houston area, reported in the
>:Houston Chronicle business section today.
>
><snip>
>
>Yea because you know... Linux zealots blindly roll out new versions
>that their business might depend on since THE GREAT ONE (Linus) says
>so.
Oh no, it's the Linux zealots again !!! Run for cover ! Seriously, you
whine about "Linux zealots" all the time, but have a hard time actually
naming any. You're having another bad trip, Jeff.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 00:35:41 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:50:57 -0500, Jeff Szarka wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 05:26:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert)
>wrote:
>
>:Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K. Coming soon.
>
>
>There are a ton of high volume sites running NT4 & Win2k. Being the
>zealot you most likely are, no matter how the upgrade turns out,
>you'll claim it went poorly and proves your agenda.
Oh, this is rich. He's accused of being a "zealot" based on what he'll
claim. Why would he claim something like that ? Because he's a "Linux zealot",
of course.
If you're going to argue with these straw men, I suggest you leave usenet
and buy yourself a "Linux zealot" sock-puppet.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:36:06 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft, Bob Lyday
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:36:24 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Nigel Feltham wrote:
>>
>> Actually the whole point of linux in the beginning was that Linus Torvalds
>> was forced to use a crap version of unix called 'Minix' at university and
>> thought he could do better and linux quickly killed off minix.
>
>It's not really crappy; it's a version of *nix that is used to teach
>Operating System theory to computer science students. It's been used
>for a long time.
>>
>> Linux is not about world domination but a university project that worked out
>> better than the student first thought.
>
>Linus himself has stated that his goal is "world domination".
I for one think that at the time he was being rather facetious. :-)
>From what little I've seen of him in the news, I for one am
given to understand he's a fairly unassuming character, unlike
a certain just-retired CEO... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Win2K. How many bugs will you admit to today? :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 28 Feb 2000 00:37:13 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 02:09:17 -0800, David Misner wrote:
>
>But it is like impossible to install
It helps when you try installing it on supported hardware.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:37:55 +0000
George Richard Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:53:43 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>You really can tell emacs was written by someone who used computers in the
> >>1970's.
> >
> > Use they menus if you don't like the keybindings.
>
> Point me to them. In the console version.
And you are complaining about 70's style programming?
> Or the keybindings to open and
> navigate the bindings in the GUI (X|GNU(emacs)) versions, either.
>
> Menus should not be mouse accessible only,
Why not?
> nor nested 10+ deep. The UI is a
> shambles.
>
No, it isn't.
>
> George Russell
> (at least gvim has a decent GUI)
> --
> One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
> Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
> Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
> The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
--
Shhh! Be vewy quiet. We're hunting penguins. -- Elmer FUD
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 28 Feb 2000 00:48:43 GMT
On 27 Feb 2000 01:46:36 GMT, Damien wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:37:24 -0000, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| I thought the whole point of linux was to give users a choice as to which
>| system to run on their machines.
>
>Actually the purpose behind Linux is world domination. The GNU
That was a *joke*. You weren't supposed to take it seriously. Linus
himself said he doesn't want Linux to gain too much market share.
>project however started because people thought software should be
>free.
Yes, but Linux didn't start because of that. THe early goals of Linux
were rather humble.
>| If linux users force all users to use their system then they are becoming as
>| bad as the mighty microsloth.
>
>I disagree.
History tells us that forcing your vision on others is ultimately
destructive even if the vision itself is not. [1]
--
Donovan
[1]
See the Russian, Chinese, and French revolutions, the inquisition,
the crusades, etc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 01:01:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 27 Feb 2000 10:10:21 -0700 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote on 27 Feb 2000 09:26:18 GMT
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 04:25:01 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>> >Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >|
>> >| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >| > 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.
>> >|
>> >| But it works.
>> >
>> >But it locks you into a specific vendor.
>>
>> Not if Wine (http://www.winehq.com) can be extended to include
>> ActiveX and ix86 emulation, and incorporated into a browser. :-)
>
>That would be awful! Could you imagine x86/Win32 code becoming the
>new internet standard? Thank god ActiveX has already failed.
It's not dead yet, unfortunately. But I do seem to see less
and less of it, thank goodness. Perhaps Webpage developers
are finally starting to get the hint. (Maybe Microsoft will,
too. :-) ) Of course I don't see that much of it anyway since
I don't run Windows for web browsing.
Unfortunately, there's a new problem; apparently, <APPLET ...>
... </APPLET> is no longer the "preferred" method for adding
applets to one's webpages. I'm going to have to research this
(it appears to be related to issues regarding the JVM plugins),
but this worries me, as it means I as a webpage developer have
to do kludgy things again. Yecch.
>
>> (Mind you, I for one think Java's security model is a little
>> more robust, anyway (having been designed into the language
>> since Day 1), and probably a lot less kludgy.)
>
>An understatement. ;)
Yeah, well, when Java works, it works well. Unfortunately,
Netscape's version of Java -- on Linux / Redhat 6.1, anyway --
seems to be somewhat less than stellar, and ends up going into
an "infinite compute" loop.
I do hope that Mozilla or Mnemonic have Java support, of some sort.
Since I can get the source code, I have a fighting chance. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************