Linux-Advocacy Digest #965, Volume #25 Wed, 5 Apr 00 15:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
("fmc")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("Tim Haynes")
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! ("Leonard F. Agius")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. (Craig
Kelley)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Craig Kelley)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Jim Dabell)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("Chad
Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:37:04 -0600
Jim Dabell wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" wrote:
> >
> > Jim Dabell wrote:
> > >
> > > Wrong again, they are markup languages. Scripting languages are
> > > complete (turing complete? I forget the full term). The only
> > > difference between interpreted ("scripting" in your words) and compiled
> > > ("programming" in your words) languages is the implementation, as you
> > > can have compiled Perl and interpreted C, etc.
> > >
> > > You are still more right than the original poster though :)
> >
> > How so? The assertion I made was:
> >
> > Every interaction with a computer is "programming".
> >
> > Now, you've been discussing the difference between computer languages
> > and markup languages, but in point of fact, that is off topic. How is
> > the *INTERACTION* between a human being and a computer non-Turing
> > complete?
>
> So I just "programmed" my monitor to be brighter when I turned the
> brightness up?
Is your monitor a computer?
What's so difficult to understand about the words "interaction" and
"computer", that everybody keeps misunderstanding them?
> I guess by your definition, any action you take is "programming the
> universe" or something?
Is the universe a computer?
[snippage]
> Just because the computer does something because of an action you take,
> it doesn't mean you are programming it.
So, let's reverse that statement for a second . . . just because I wrote
a program to tell the computer to take an action, does not mean that I
am programming?
> And for the record, HTML is *not* programming.
Correct. HTML is not programming, any more than a door is jumping.
Programming is a process. HTML is a thing, not a process.
> Technically speaking, it
> doesn't have to involve a computer at all.
Correct. Some Computer Scientists do programming without ever
interacting with a programming. Your task, should you choose to accept
it, is to prove that a particular interaction with a computer is not
programming.
> If somebody gave me HTML
> source on a bit of paper, are they programming me?
Are you a computer? I still don't understand why my respondents are
finding it so difficult to understand the word "computer".
> Markup doesn't
> dictate actions, it is a bunch of descriptions about how a piece of text
> should be interpreted, there is no specific action to take.
Once again, my assertion was not that HTML is a programming language,
but that every interaction with a computer is programming.
> By your
> definition, a dictionary "programs" anybody looking up a definition.
Nope. That wasn't my assertion . . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05 Apr 2000 17:45:56 GMT
On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:20:27 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 03:42:48 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| >
| > | > Kerberos and M$'s little "addition" (undocumented)
| > |
| > | And that undocumented addition is entirely standards compliant. The
| > | standard doesn't require the documentation of extension fields.
| >
| > Basically, Microsoft has made additions to the standard that make it
| > impossible for a non MS server to server Kerberos tickets to an MS
| > client. Another cut and dry case of MS using embrace-and-extend
| > tactics to leverage their desktop OS monopoly into the server market.
| >
| > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/kerberos-faq/general/section-62.html
|
| If you read the article, Microsoft made no such "additions". Microsoft
| worked with the Kerberos committee, thus the committee created the
| additions. Microsoft merely created a standard compliant extension.
|
| Note the message you link to is a message from Jeremy Allison. It doesn't
| state the date of the message, but here's a message from Jeremy from only a
| few weeks ago that states matter of factly that Microsoft followed the
| standard.
|
| http://x30.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=594981919
|
| Jeremy is probably rightfully annoyed that Microsoft hasn't documented their
| PAC format, but the standard does not require them to do so.
What Jeremy doesn't mention is that MS made their clients dependent on
this non-standard addition to Kerberos. So while the servers still
meet the standard, the clients don't, since they depend on proprietary
additions.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:49:12 GMT
"Jeremy Crabtree" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> fmc allegedly wrote:
> >
> >"Jeremy Crabtree" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> fmc allegedly wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On 04 Apr 2000 23:51:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:57:04 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> >> >> >Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >| > Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
> >> >> >| > WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken
or
> >MS
> >> >> >| > Money, a tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or
> >TaxSaver,
> >> >> >| > and project management software like MS Project or
> >CA-SuperProject.
> >> >> >| > These don't exist for Linux. I also can't manage my bank
accounts
> >> >> >| > online. That requires either Windows or Mac.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Finace management and tax preparation
> >> >> >http://freshmeat.net/appindex/x11/financial.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My bank allows me to use any browser capable of SSL.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're joking right?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >FRESH MEAT??? ROTFL. That sure has that stable financial aura.
> >>
> >> So, you're admitting to us that you didn't even bother to check out the
> >URL?
> >>
> >> Apparently you didn't get that Freshmeat.net is a rough Linux
equivalent
> >to
> >> download.com or shareware.com
> >
> >OF course I checked out the URL. That's how I knew there was no 99
version
> >of PTax. I just though the name was funny. I can imagine the looks I'd
get
> >if I told anyone I worked with to get their financial software at Fresh
> >meat. That's a term some brokers use to refer to naive customers.
>
> You still don't seem to be getting it...Freshmeat.net /DOES NOT HOST OR
> DISTRIBUTE ANY SOFTWARE/! The merely direct you to the sites where you can
> find it.
The name FRESH MEAT is still a hoot. What can I say?
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> You are comparing a collection of checkbook balancing programs to
> >> >> QuickBooks ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, I really like PTax98. "Computes MOST of the 1998 Federal 1040EZ?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll bet the IRS is real interested in the part it doesn't compute.
> >> >
> >> >At least you get to deduct the COST of the software. And the 1999
> >version
> >> >should be out any day now.
> >>
> >> Have you considered using a pencil and paper, and possibly a
caluculator?
> >> They're compatile with any OS you can possibly name...
> >
> >It's really VERY complex, it takes forever, and most accountants can't do
it
> >without consistently making mistakes, That's why tax software is so
popular
> >that even accounting firms use it. I used one to check my 96 return
against
> >what an accountant charged me $400 to do, and it produced exactly the
same
> >return. I've been doing it myself ever since. This year I picked up
> >TurboTax AND MS TaxSaver (cost $20, free after $20 rebate). I'll use
> >TurboTax to do the actual filing, but TaxSaver has a great help section
with
> >access to an online copy of J.K. Lasser's Your Income Tax 2000. It helps
> >you save on next year's taxes by planning for them starting now. That's
how
> >I was able to buy this computer.
> >
> >Who still does these things on paper?
>
> Well...my mother does...of course, she has an MBA...
My mother still writes all her business correspondence longhand. She also
knits sweaters by hand. I think I'll give her a call tommorrow.
>
> > Let the computer do the things it's
> >good at. I only use a pencil to do crossword puzzles.
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
> >> >> TaxCut...
> >> >>
> >> >> What a joke....
> >>
> >> The biggest joke is the blind hatred andrhetoric /YOU/ keep spewing
out.
> >You
> >> could AT THE VERY LEAST ///TRY/// the software BEFORE you call is
"crap"
> >or
> >
> >Who are you talking to anyway?
>
> You, and your ilk...you all seem to be full of insults and excuses...and
> not much else.
What excuses? I didn't make any excuses. Are you ilk?
>
> > I didn't write that. As far as trying
> >PTax98 is concerned, that was only good for LAST YEAR. There's no PTax99
to
> >be found, at least at that site. That's the joke.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
> roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
> -- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
>
------------------------------
From: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 05 Apr 2000 19:02:03 +0100
Reply-To: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Kew) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Sometimes I wonder what's so great about this capitalist thing after
> > all. Or about communism. Or any other political Thing.
>
> Oi!!
S'ok, I only said 'sometimes'... :)
> The Thing has an honourable tradition. The old icelandic Thing has a
> democratic tradition going back over 1000 years.
>
> The Thing gave every citizen the right to speak *and be heard*. Can you
> imagine that in our modern so-called democracy?
>
> [ yes, that *is* the etymology of my domain name ]
Gosh. I'll have to look into it a bit then :)
~Tim
--
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-
| The sun is melting over the hills, | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Leonard F. Agius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:07:44 GMT
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:41:21 GMT,
> Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Editing the autoexec.bat]
>
> > Not bragging in the least. That's my point. You and I don't think twice about
> > doing something that scares the hell out of the average computer
> > illiterate person. Can you imagine these people having to edit a line of code?
>
> You don't let people drive cars without a permit (which,
> theoretically proves that you can survive in traffic and know
> most rules somewhat). So why in hell should you let people use
> computers without even basic knowledge? Give them a typewriter
> or a console game (and they'd be too complicated, too).
>
While I agree with you in principle, I can't agree with you in practice. I can't
think of a small business in my area (Detroit, MI, USA) that can survive without
computers, and the labor market here is so tight now, finding competent people is a
real challenge. Hence, the need for the "idiot proof" OS & Office Suite, among other
software solutions.
Basically, it means pandering to the lowest common denominator.
>
> > Too many people who
> > can't program the clock on their VCR are now the "driving force" behind the
> > marketing decisions for a lot of software.
>
> And you'd buy a car marketed by people who don't have any idea
> about security?
>
Hell, you're lucky you're in Germany. At least they know how to make and market cars
to people who like to REALLY drive them. Again, case of the US market being quite a
bit different -again it's about appealing to the lowest common denominator. And most
of these marketing people with the auto companies wouldn't know safety & security if
it bit them in the ass. Same goes for the mass market. Still, that's where the
majority of the profit potential is at, rather than a fragmented series of niche
markets.
>
> > And that's exactly what the mass market wants: As easy to use as a toaster. If
> > they have to think, in any way, FORGET IT. They don't want to make the effort.
>
> Console games ARE to complicated, then. (not to mention ANY OS)
You correct - for many of the bone headed public, EVERYTHING is too complicated.
Doesn't change the facts. Business go where the money is - in other words, where the
opportunity to make the most money is, and the profit motive, whether we like it or
not, determines EVERYTHING.
>
>
> -Wolf"Now I understand why in the US judical system, common
> sense is not assumed to exist"gang
You got that right, friend. I don't disagree with your signature line in the least.
--
Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
The opinions expressed are my own.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05 Apr 2000 12:21:14 -0600
"fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program supported by
> a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's why
> user support is a team effort.
Where is CricketGraph that will work on MacOS > 8.0?
We use this program heavily in our college, and we have to keep an old
Mac up and running because the company which made CG was purchased a
few years ago and they never bothered to port it to PPC. It doesn't
run well on a Mac after System 7.5.
The users don't like any of the alternatives. They are not as easy
and don't have the same features.
Where do I go for support now? If it were Open Source, I could do
something about it...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05 Apr 2000 12:26:50 -0600
Christian Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrob:
> > I'd love a mail program that can sort and search mail. One that can
> > automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules.
>
> I myself use fetchmail / procmail. The latter installed quite
> well from the shipped rpm, just had to put a few lines in
> ~/.procmailrc like
I'd also like to mention Evolution, which will be part of Gnome-2.0 --
it is a full Outlook replacement, but uses open standards for
everything it does. It looks *very* nice; all componentized and can
do most everything procmail does plus it stores indexes of all your
mailboxes and calendar, to-do lists, contacts, etc.
Coming soon to a desktop near you.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:29:25 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:13:36 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program
supported by
> | a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's
why
> | user support is a team effort.
>
> The same thing can happen with propritary programs. The only
> difference is that with Open Source software development can continue
> when the original authors abandon it.
That leaves a lot to chance. If I'm betting my livelihood on a program, I
want some assurance that the program will be maintained by the developer.
In some cases (Apache comes to mind) there are enough interested parties to
keep the project alive, but that's not always possible. Sometimes you have
a single developer, and when he loses interest the program could be
orphaned.
>
> | Stallman is a master of double think. He considers violations of
copyright
> | like software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
> | neighbor'', and then he uses those same copyright laws to set up GPL,
where
> | it states, "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
Program
> | except as expressly provided under this License", and "These actions are
> | prohibited by law if you do not accept this License ".
>
> The purpose of the GPL is to allow people to share information, and
> enforce it actually.
If he believes that his intellectual property is meant to be shared, that's
his business, and he can copyright the GPL to do just that. In fact, the
word "copyright" is used no less than 16 times in the GPL sample text at
http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.txt
The hypocrisy starts when he makes excuses for piracy that violates the
intellectual property of other people. Just because HIS license requires
the user to share the covered software doesn't mean that MY copyrighted
property is OK to share with others. Yet he approves of just that when he
says that software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
neighbor''.
>
> | BTW, he gets pissed when you say Linux. You're supposed to call it
> | GNU/Linux, in deference to him, I suppose.
>
> It's understandable. The GNU project created and entire operating
> system, minus a kernel. Linus creates a kernel, and get credit for
> the whole shabang. Plus, the GNU name makes it easier to spread the
> word about freedom, which is what the GNU project is all about.
Nobody cares. BestBuy had 3 or 4 versions of Linux on their shelves
yesterday, and not a single one said GNU/Linux on the box. Maybe that's
because without the Linux kernel, there wouldn't be a single GNU product on
those shelves.
fmc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:36:46 GMT
On 5 Apr 2000 12:07:21 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>Think distributed instead of monolith.
Like the distributed processing "boom" of the 1990's that was supposed
to kill the mainframe?
Steve
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:10:54 -0400, "JOGIBA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Microsoft makes more money in one hour than all the Linux companies made in
>>>the last ten years. Linux will never be a mainstream desktop OS .
>Dinosaurs ruled the earth one too.... whats your point ?
>
>>
>
>
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 19:37:19 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
[snip]
> > > Now, you've been discussing the difference between computer languages
> > > and markup languages, but in point of fact, that is off topic. How is
> > > the *INTERACTION* between a human being and a computer non-Turing
> > > complete?
> >
> > So I just "programmed" my monitor to be brighter when I turned the
> > brightness up?
>
> Is your monitor a computer?
What about laptops? Or change it from twisting a knob on the monitor to
sliding a slide bar on the screen. The *act* doesn't change, only the
method.
> What's so difficult to understand about the words "interaction" and
> "computer", that everybody keeps misunderstanding them?
It's not the fact that people are misunderstanding you. I for one
thought that you couldn't think that there was something magical about
the word computer that somehow changes the nature of what you are doing,
so I guess I interpreted you differently. I won't make the same mistake
again.
> > I guess by your definition, any action you take is "programming the
> > universe" or something?
>
> Is the universe a computer?
>
According to at least one of my mates ;)
> > Just because the computer does something because of an action you take,
> > it doesn't mean you are programming it.
>
> So, let's reverse that statement for a second . . . just because I wrote
> a program to tell the computer to take an action, does not mean that I
> am programming?
That isn't the reverse of the statement I made. You need help with your
logic.
> > And for the record, HTML is *not* programming.
>
> Correct. HTML is not programming, any more than a door is jumping.
>
> Programming is a process. HTML is a thing, not a process.
OK.
And for the record, writing HTML is *not* programming. Even if you type
it into a computer!!!
> > Technically speaking, it
> > doesn't have to involve a computer at all.
>
> Correct. Some Computer Scientists do programming without ever
> interacting with a programming. Your task, should you choose to accept
> it, is to prove that a particular interaction with a computer is not
> programming.
But since you stand by the blanket statement "any interaction with a
computer is programming" it is impossible to do so. You seem to be a
troll.
> > If somebody gave me HTML
> > source on a bit of paper, are they programming me?
>
> Are you a computer?
Depends on your point of view and definition of computer.
> > Markup doesn't
> > dictate actions, it is a bunch of descriptions about how a piece of text
> > should be interpreted, there is no specific action to take.
>
> Once again, my assertion was not that HTML is a programming language,
> but that every interaction with a computer is programming.
>
> > By your
> > definition, a dictionary "programs" anybody looking up a definition.
>
> Nope. That wasn't my assertion . . .
>
You're right that wasn't. The difference is the magical word "computer"
that seems to make anything programming. How about "smacking your head
into the keyboard is programming"?
I said it above, and I'll say it again down here. Using a computer to
do something doesn't change the nature of what you are doing. If I type
something into a computer, and print it, it is no more programming than
simply using a typewriter. If I use a ticket machine in the London
underground, it's no more programming than buying one from the ticket
booth.
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:38:39 GMT
Actually it was a set of brushes that would read the punched holes in
card stock.
At least on the IBM 3505/3525 Reader/Punch combo.
Steve
On 5 Apr 2000 04:05:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>Michael Livshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> kids this days...
>
>...no longer use leaf switches and IBM cards to tell machines
>what to do. They program, or they script.
>
>:)
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:43:22 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program
supported by
> > a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's
why
> > user support is a team effort.
>
> Where is CricketGraph that will work on MacOS > 8.0?
>
> We use this program heavily in our college, and we have to keep an old
> Mac up and running because the company which made CG was purchased a
> few years ago and they never bothered to port it to PPC. It doesn't
> run well on a Mac after System 7.5.
>
> The users don't like any of the alternatives. They are not as easy
> and don't have the same features.
>
> Where do I go for support now? If it were Open Source, I could do
> something about it...
>
You mean you have to port Mac programs between hardware platforms? That
sounds like Apple's problem. How old is this thing anyway? In any case, if
they don't sell enough copies to make it worth their while to upgrade, it's
not commercially viable to upgrade it. If it was open source you might not
find anyone interested in doing it for free, so you'd be stuck doing the
work yourself. If you're good at that kind of thing, why not just get
something else that's similar and modify it yourself?
Or you could get the college to buy Mathematica. That runs on Mac, and I
hear it's one hell of a program.
fmc
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:42:32 -0500
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 03:42:48 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> | > Kerberos and M$'s little "addition" (undocumented)
> |
> | And that undocumented addition is entirely standards compliant. The
> | standard doesn't require the documentation of extension fields.
>
> Basically, Microsoft has made additions to the standard that make it
> impossible for a non MS server to server Kerberos tickets to an MS
> client. Another cut and dry case of MS using embrace-and-extend
> tactics to leverage their desktop OS monopoly into the server market.
That WAS true early in the betas. However, the release version of Win2K
is fully interoperable.
The only catch is that non-windows KDCs cannot feed windows clients all
extra extended Microsoft stuff (group policies, group membership, directory
stuff, etc). However, a non-Windows KDC-issued ticket is still valid to
a Windows server if the Windows server trusts the KDC (which is standards
based with Kerberos).
The only people complaining about this Vendor-specific field (which is
exactly what MIT designed it for) is the Samba team, as they can't act
like a full Windows2000 domain server for Windows2000 kerberos clients.
However, MSFT's implementation is still 100% Kerberos v5 compliant.
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/kerberos-faq/general/section-62.html
This document is way old. Note that they still refer to it as NT 5.
This _WAS_ true, but not any more.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
