Linux-Advocacy Digest #525, Volume #25 Mon, 6 Mar 00 12:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
("Charles W. Swiger")
Re: What's GNU/Linux? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! (Mark Robinson)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: (Sascha
Bohnenkamp)
Re: What's GNU/Linux? (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin (Sascha
Bohnenkamp)
Re: What's GNU/Linux? (Alexander Viro)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
("Christopher Smith")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("2 + 2")
Re: What's GNU/Linux? (Grant Edwards)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT ("2 + 2")
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Jon)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT ("2 + 2")
Re: BSD & Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: BSD & Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A little advocacy.. (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 15:13:01 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ ... ]
> I think these guys suffer from a worldview that Apple does all that is
> good:
>
> Linux is good.
> Apple does all that is good.
> Therefore, Apple must do Linux.
Heh-- that seems to be a pretty apt conclusion. :-)
[ ... ]
> This is USENET, and everybody's got their own gig. I personally find the
> many threads in cs[mn]a discussing and disecting Mac OS X screenshots
> (smuggled out from under the NDA) to be pretty boring.
Absolutely. User interface stuff is an obvious topic since it's the first
thing people see and notice, but a lot of people don't understand what the
heck a "developer preview" is for, and damned few are willing to put the time
and work into doing meaningful testing and analysis of a UI.
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: What's GNU/Linux?
Date: 6 Mar 2000 15:15:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Sure. And you know what? About the only piece of GNU code we really depend
: on is gcc, with GNU make as distant second. Basic utilities? No Thanks.
: Look at them someday. As in "read through the code". And then tell whether
: you needed a barf-bag. Bloated, overdesigned, trying to outsmart the kernel/
: users/everything, full of ifdefs... <bletch>
I hate to disagree publicly with a kernel hacker on whose work *I*
depend, so let me first start by saying thank you for some great work!
But can I respectfully ask where you or I or any of us would be
without gcc?
Yes, most of the rest of GNU's stuff could be replaced, and perhaps
some of it should be. Yes, it may be riddled with nasty #ifdefs and
the like. (That tends to happen when you're trying to support
numerous different platforms, some of which don't even support ANSI
C.)
But without gcc and RMS and the FSF, would something like Linux or 95%
of the rest of the free software out there be possible (using the term
"free" in the sense of freedom)?
Or am I missing something obvious?
Joe
------------------------------
From: Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 15:46:16 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> "Mike Kenzie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> <snip>
>
> "Produce" gives it more credit than it deserves. It did bulk rendering work.
> Just slaving away drawing dots, not the creative process -- just the bulk
> repetive work. Creative work took place on... guess the OS... <grin>
BrainOS?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: 6 Mar 2000 09:47:44 -0600
In article <89v558$k0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wow, W2K really scares you doesn't it?
>The fact that it's already proven by 100s of thousands of users, the fact
>that HUGE e-commerces sites already use it (and have been using it since
>beta) successully without reporting any problems. and you try to say
>unproven? You miss the fact it's beaten all comers in world class
>benchmarks. you miss the fact that 500,000 people have already bought it
>(NOT counting corporate sales) and you miss the fact that it's out there...
>working... right now. No one is reporting 63,000 bugs. People are reporting
>improvements in performance and reliability accross the board.
>
>scares you dont' it...
These 'improvements' are against NT, though. All it really proves
is just how bad NT really was. Those of use using unix all along
already knew that. Even the people using beta W2K knew that
or they wouldn't have been pressed into working with beta code.
The question is, when you know how bad NT is, why do you trust
the company that created it to get it right this time?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: 6 Mar 2000 15:50:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:47:28 -0300,
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Like, you trust someone (aka their code), which makes you trust
> > people you wouldn't trust in any other way. I mean, you'd let me
> > happily move your mouse and hack on your keyboard while using your
> > banking software? Without you being able to look? Well ...
> I guess you're talking about security breaches in ActiveX, Java, ...
> rather than about the principle of active contents itself.
> I was talking about the principle. Code and creators can be linked
> using certification mechanisms, etc.
Do you prefer "active contents" even though they may erase your HD
and send out money orders you won't approve off? I mean, noone
would actually sign malicious code or even code that turned off
your security measures, would they?
Luckily pizza shops will usually ring back before delivery.
(and that's not talking about the usual cardbord security,
either.)
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:52:08 +0100
> If Mac OS X is anything like the (good) old NeXTSTEP internally then
> it makes much use of Mach's IPC facilities which don't really have a
> good replacement under other Unix or Unix-like systems.
interesting -- what could this be?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: What's GNU/Linux?
Date: 6 Mar 2000 15:51:46 GMT
In article <8a0i2c$sl9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But can I respectfully ask where you or I or any of us would be
>without gcc?
>Or am I missing something obvious?
We'd probably be using lcc, or bcc, or something similar. Gcc is not
the only free C compiler around.
Mike.
--
#define ESPANISHINQ 1478 /* Expect the Spanish Inquisition */
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:54:23 +0100
> Perhaps they went with Mach/BSD because the NeXT people know/knew it *far*
> better than Linux
that must be the reason why everone is using nextstations anywhere ...
especialy as
servers *grin*
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: What's GNU/Linux?
Date: 6 Mar 2000 10:57:24 -0500
In article <8a0i2c$sl9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Sure. And you know what? About the only piece of GNU code we really depend
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: on is gcc, with GNU make as distant second. Basic utilities? No Thanks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: Look at them someday. As in "read through the code". And then tell whether
>: you needed a barf-bag. Bloated, overdesigned, trying to outsmart the kernel/
>: users/everything, full of ifdefs... <bletch>
>Yes, most of the rest of GNU's stuff could be replaced, and perhaps
>some of it should be. Yes, it may be riddled with nasty #ifdefs and
>the like. (That tends to happen when you're trying to support
>numerous different platforms, some of which don't even support ANSI
>C.)
>
>But without gcc and RMS and the FSF, would something like Linux or 95%
>of the rest of the free software out there be possible (using the term
>"free" in the sense of freedom)?
>
>Or am I missing something obvious?
Erm... ;-) Like the underlined sentence above? Yes, gcc is the only game in the
town. Whether there would be a better free compiler or not is a moot point -
with gcc around it just didn't happen. So everybody depends on gcc. Notice
that by the same reason they could pretend that *BSD, etc. are GNU systems.
They don't, and rightfully so.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 6 Mar 2000 16:01:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:07:29 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is incorrect. NT3.51 was not network C2 rated but NT4 IS network C2
> rated.
.. if and only if the network is physically secure. Else: No
more C2.
> W2K is even more secure than NT4 could ever dreamed of being.
In other words: NT4 never was a highly secure system.
Certainly not half as much as M$ claimed it was. (Else W2K
would be hard pressed to be even a bit more secure.)
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:01:43 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:89vde4$kqv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 2 Mar 3900 02:04:50,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
> wrote:
> >
> > Windows 95 was a much needed improvement, it's just a shame it had some
> > odd UI 'features' (Who in their right mind puts the close icon next to
> > the maximise icon?!) and was too unstable.
>
> OS/2 Warp already had done it the 'right' way: [ Close > Minimize
> >FullScreen ]
> so naturally Win95 had to do it wrong.
Ugh. That button arrangement was one of my pet hates of OS/2.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 6 Mar 2000 16:09:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6 Mar 2000 06:43:35 GMT,
5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Being a .0 release does not excuse microsoft from lying and telling Chad
> Meyers its the "most secure version of windows yet". Such a thing
> can clearly not be said about W2K yet.
Just imagine for a second ...
... W2K is the safest Windows out there, as it stands. Now
where does that leave NT? Not to speak of Win XX ?
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:10:58 -0500
George Marengo wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 13:29:04 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> I've heard reasonably good things about W2K's reliability as well,
and
>>> >> hope those things prove to be correct, but I still won't purchase or
>>> >> recommend Microsoft software until Microsoft ceases and desists from
>>> >> unethical and/or criminal behavior (including but not limited to
>>> >> subverting formerly open standards such as Kerberos).
>>> >
>>> >someone should sue this guy for his continued criminal behaviour
claims.
The state "sues" guys for criminal behavior in behalf of yours truly, et.
al.
FYI, the good news is that there are a number of "antitrust" related class
action cases being pursued.
The bad news is that the result of many of these cases is that the consumer
gets a coupon to buy the next version of the OS at the "street price," while
the lawyers divy up countless piles of cold, hard cash.
Even the lead attorney for the states has departed for an antitrust law
firm.
Boies was caught soliciting clients in England, before Klein, the antitrust
DoJ chief, suggesting it might be a conflict of interest (if Boies later
went after the big money)
I'm sure that anyone related to the Clinton administration would ever so
much as think about making some dough on the side. The ideals of this regime
is impeachable, err impeckerable, that is impecible, IMHO.
2 + 2
>>>
>>> Has MS been found guilty of violations of state and/or federal
>>> statues in the past? Are they now being investigated for same?
>>
>>MS has not been found guilty of any criminal violations in the past.
>
>You're quite right... no criminal violations, only civil violations.
>
>>MS has followed the RFC. There is no law that states they must
>>document their changes to vendor specific fields.
>
>Of course there's no law... but the correct ethical behavior would be
>to document it.
>
>>Yes, they agreed to document it, and they should. But not doing so
>>doesn't violate the standard.
>
>I never said it did violate the standard -- I just asked for
>documentation of their addition. Based on information
>given by Chad Meyers, that process is well underway.
>
------------------------------
From: grant@nowhere. (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: What's GNU/Linux?
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:15:53 GMT
In article <8a0i2c$sl9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>But can I respectfully ask where you or I or any of us would be
>without gcc?
Respectuflly; we'd be using a different free C compiler. Were
gcc not around filling that niche, the DECUS C compiler (which
is what I used before gcc) or one of the other free ones would
evolve to do so. I'm not trying to minimize gcc --
Gcc/binutils is a tremendous piece of work which I've been
gratefully using for 10+ years. But, writing C compilers,
linkers, and assemblers isn't black magic. It takes a lot of
hard work to do something like gcc, but it doesn't depend on
the deivine inspiration of a single person.
>But without gcc and RMS and the FSF, would something like Linux
>or 95% of the rest of the free software out there be possible
>(using the term "free" in the sense of freedom)?
Yes, it would.
>Or am I missing something obvious?
I think so. There isn't a serious alternative to gcc not
becase such a thing is impossible, but because there isn't a
need. We only really _need_ one good open source C compiler.
Gcc was in the right place at the right time with the right
people working on it. If it wasn't, then the same environment
would have resulted in the evolution and proliferation of one
of the other species of free C compilers to fill the niche that
gcc now occupies.
My point: Gcc is a result of the open-source software
movement, not the cause of it.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Used staples are good
at with SOY SAUCE!
visi.com
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:22:15 -0500
fred wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>On 6 Mar 2000 00:34:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) wrote:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Perhaps for one large scale site that is easily partitioned, but not
>>>> for tens of thousands of smaller sites.
>>
>>> You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Tens of
>>> thousands of smaller sites are *already partitioned* by their very
>>> nature, and thus very easy to load balance across a server farm.
>>
>>I do, because I deal with this sort of thing every single day.
>
> Then why are you acting like a moron?
>
> Mark Hamstra is right... 10,000 small sites are easily placed across
>multiple servers because they're already partitioned.
>
>>From the nature of your statement, I guarantee that you have never
>>run tens of thousands of virtual hosts on a single NT cluster,
>>because if you had, you would know what an enormous pain in the
>>ass *everything about it* is.
>
> Trolling for dollars?
>
>>I'm not saying that it doesnt work; im saying that NT cannot
>>compete. You arent understanding what im saying.
>
> Explain microsoft.com
>
>>I'm saying that the reason that NT cant compete in this area is
>>because its TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE TO BABYSIT, AND TOO FUCKING
>>EXPENSIVE TO BUY. With two or three free alternatives which
>>will generally run on identical hardware and require much cheaper
>>babysitting, the decision is clear.
>
> Strange, you suggested Solaris. Ever price a Sun server?
We did a TCO study and we were able to get 10,000 "3 x 5"s for the price of
one Sun server.
Now that was with the quantity discount program.
The one from India where they sleep on a little rug on racks in the server
room.
What racks?
The racks for the server farms that were cleared out when the Sun server was
put in.
2 + 2
>
>
>Quit pretending you know what you are talking about... it's criminal.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:30:44 GMT
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:14:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon) writes:
> >> Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > (Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
>
> >> > > How many machines do *you* know that are in active use today
> >> > > *and* were so 15,20,30 years ago?
> >>
> >> > 2 that I've worked with personally.
> [...]
> >One of the 2 machines is (yes, it's still in use) a 386DX40 with
> >32MB RAM and an RLL drive on a 16MB cache card. I have 4
> >machines in pieces at home that outpower that thing.
>
> A 386DX40 is less than 10 years old. Not 15, not 20, not 30, and most
> certainly not 38.
<sigh> That 386 machine was not always a 386. It started out as
an IBM PC-XT (hot stuff at the time). At what point did I claim
it was 38 years old, eh? You apparently missed the entire point.
The upgrade, when it was performed, caused so many problems that
took so long to smooth out that future upgrades were considered
out of the question. The only remaining option was to transition
completely to a new platform for MRP. If you've ever looked into
MRP pricing, you'll understand why this isn't much of an option
either. Hence, the pathetic 386 is still in use today complete
with a (now corrected) date problem.
Now, step down from your high horse, (Mr./Ms.) Meyer, and try
some constructive conversation.
Jon
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:32:55 -0500
fred wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 21:28:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 15:38:43 -0500, "Rick Bestany"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> IIS is *awful
>>>
>>>
>>>Could you clarify please?
>>>
>>
>>Simple. Create a CGI program that allocates dynamic memory
>>which terminates without freeing the memory.
>
> Why would you use CGI?
Haven't you ever seen one of those slow bicycle races?
You have CGI fetch it one hump at a time, meanwhile you have a nice juicy
Java applet loading reeaal sllllllooooooooooooooooooow.
They were successful in posting the first negative result on the TPC-C
benchmark.
You think it's easy to go real slow on a bicycle, don't you?
2 + 2
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:29:28 GMT
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:11:14 GMT, "Ste" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>That's not football, thats the weird game Americans play like Rugby, except
>Rugby
>guys don't need all that padding.
It's the weird game Canadians invented and still play. Football
descended from Rugby, and it was introduced to the USA (Harvard
University) by McGill University, from Montreal.
Coincidentally, James Naismith (from Almonte, Ontario) was once at
McGill, and he invented basketball while in the USA.
Ice hockey also comes from the 'Great White North", although it
appears to have been invented by Irish students in Windsor, NS,
instead of by Canadians.
If you want to dump on North American sports, then you might as well
dump on the inventors of the sports, instead of the USA :)
Thus endeth the history lesson!
>Association Football (saarccer, to you 'murricans) is the 'Beautiful Game'
>
>Solaris is Association Football
>*BSD is Rugby Union
>Linux is Rugby League
>American Gridiron Football is Windows, all padding and razzamatazz
>
>Yes I know I'm using outlook, but I could be using Solaris.
>
>Ste
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:33:33 GMT
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:29:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Thus endeth the history lesson!
Then again, maybe not.
. Rugby itself is, of course, descended from soccer. So there is a
direct line of descendence from soccer to football. We in north
america would call it continous improvement ;-).
Now the lesson has truly ended.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux?
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:56:36 GMT
A checkbook balancing program could hardly be compared to TurboTax or
Taxcut.
Nice try :)
Here's the link in case anyone wishes to take a gander.
http://cbb.sourceforge.net/cbb-main.gif
On 6 Mar 2000 20:17:55 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 07:39:58 GMT,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So why don't you tell him how to do it Terry_the_Porter?
>>You seem to have all the answers.
>>
>>
>>pete
>>
>Sure Steve, my pleasure.
>
>Check out CBB.
>
>
>
>..... There Steve happy now ?
>
>
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 6 Mar 2000 16:58:01 GMT
On 6 Mar 2000 12:30:31 GMT, Colin Watson wrote:
>Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch) writes:
>GNOME, absolutely, but
In fact Applixware already links against GTK.
> I'm not sure about the situation with KDE. Is it
>sufficient to link against the Qt libraries, or are there KDE core
>libraries to link against too? In the former case, the Qt libraries are
>under the QPL (and technically KDE is unredistributable because it's
>GPLed and links against them :(, and Debian can't distribute it for this
>reason ...).
The KDE libs are LGPL'd. You really *do* want to link against the KDE
libraries to get all of your KDE preferences automatically applied
to the application in quesiotn ( not to mention that the KDE API adds
a bunch of useful stuff to QT )
>But, in any case, section 6a of the QPL states that all Qt-linked
>applications must be open-source,
That or the licensee must pay a license fee.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: 6 Mar 2000 17:04:06 GMT
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:04:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You beat me to it but here is some more:
>Assuming he doesn't have the ever popular Winmodem which seems to be
>included with just about every pre-load on the planet.
It's certainly not included with any of the Linux preloads.
But you have a small point -- Linux, like any other OS only works
on compatible hardware.
>After reading Samba How-to's until your eyes are bleary eyed and red.
>If it's so easy why has someone in this group even set up "yet
>another"Samba help page" ?
Personally, I had SAMBA up in a few minutes
>Buy a Linksys Windows networking kit and you will be doing it in 10
>minutes or less.
Whatever. If yopu approach Windows with the same bad faith that you approach
Linux with, I don/t think there'd be much difference.
>>> Can my wife's Mac use the files? Yes.
>See above.
>>> Can I put a printer on it, and share that? Yes.
>
>Assuming you paid through the nose for a Postscript printer ala HP.
Steve, quit your lying, and quit fraudulently using false aliases.
The Lexmark Optra 40 is a postscript color inkjet printer that goes for $100-
Look, why don't you take a trip to the Village and buy yourself some
gay porn videos, instead of taking out your sexual frustrations on our group ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
