Linux-Advocacy Digest #982, Volume #25 Thu, 6 Apr 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Terry Porter)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Terry Porter)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading (Joseph)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (Joseph)
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. ("fmc")
Re: So where are the MS supporters. (Truckasaurus)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Terry Porter)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? ("Leonard F. Agius")
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 6 Apr 2000 14:21:10 +0800
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:18:46 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>Yea, they don't like me because I have actually tried and used Linux
>and can speak from my miserable experience unlike most of the
>Linvocates whose last experience with Windows was Win95 original
>version.
Hahahah I remember those 3 days you "tried" Linux over "Heather", but then
you were "keys88".
I recall your anguish when your printer didnt work, and I was little supprised
how quickly you started to spew about Linux not being ready. At the time I
thought it odd, that your transition from Linux newby to Linux hater was so
fast.
But then we soon realised, that you'd been a WinShrill from day one.
So Win95 has grown up hey ???
Since I last used it as youve pointed out, so long ago, its become usefull ?
Now the source is free I assume ?
Multi user ?
Stable ?
Hey thats great, maybe I can use it after all ?
>
>Bottom line is Linux is a geek system, always has been and no amount
>of candy will help it along.
Yawnnn....
>
>Windows has the market, and will continue to have such especially the
>desktop/home market where Linux is laughable at best.
Kepp laffing "Heather/Steve/Amy/Keys88" it's all you got baby!
>
>>> Bob
>>> "There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
>>> significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
>>> interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
>>> Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
>
>
>Steve
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 19 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
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: No-Spam
Date: 6 Apr 2000 14:29:52 +0800
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:44:30 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't care if you have choice.
>
>I have plenty of choice. I can walk into CompUSA and pick up just
>about any piece of hardware or software and it will work. Under
>Windows/Mac that is.
Like a nice PS printer for the MAC ???
You keep on ranting about Linux and PS printers "Heather/Steve/Amy/Keys88"
do you know they're a *standard* with the Mac ???
Now take your nice PS MAC printer and try it with Windows ?
>
>Linux need not apply.....
Linux doesnt apply, your talking commercial, proprietary and $$$$$$.
Linux is FREE :)))
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 19 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
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: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 06:33:52 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting fmc from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 06 Apr 2000 02:42:15 GMT
> >"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> Yet that's exactly what it is. You have no innate right to control
> >> other people's property. That right is given by the government in
> >> order to foster progress. But in the case of the software industry,
> >> there is good reason to believe these laws are stifling progress.
> >
> >You've been reading that RS manifesto, haven't you? What a waste of
time.
> >You see, my rights are not doled out by the government. I also happen to
> >own MY intellectual property.
>
> That's not an "also". You have rights to property because your rights are
> inalienable, and not "doled out" or in any other way provided by the
> government. Other than their successful efforts to ensure that other's
don't
> deal themselves into your rights on their own.
I'll go along with that.
>
> But as far as *intellectual* property goes, the very concept is created
and
> manifest solely by government laws providing your ideas and your mental
works
> with the same protection against others as your speech and your physical
> property.
They created a concept, but not the innate rights.
>
> >I'm not interested in controlling anyone
> >else's, and no one else has the right to copy what belongs to me without
my
> >permission. RS may think otherwise, but he's wrong.
>
> But unfortunately their not having "the right" to take what belongs to you
is
> not what prevents them from doing so. It is the government ensuring you
can
> practice your rights which does that. So if the government didn't prevent
you
> from copying anyone else's intellectual property, would you feel the need
to
> take others, or would their natural right be enough?
The fact that it's wrong to take someone else's property is enough to
prevent me from doing so.
> It certainly seems to be
> in art and performance. But then again, is it the big bold "FBI WARNING"
> screen, or the relative convenience and relatively low cost of renting
videos
> which prevents you from stealing movies?
Those FBI warnings are on videos and not on (for instance) books, because
videos are easy and inexpensive to copy for resale, and books are not. The
FBI expends considerable resources in tracking down and prosecuting large
scale video pirates. If book piracy became a major problem, they would
reassign some of their people to that problem.
This has nothing to do with Stallman's position on copyright though. What
is your point?
> RS firmly understands that nobody has the right to take what belongs to
you
> without your permission.
That's not the impression I got. You left out my comments about Stallman's
conflicting positions on piracy and the copyright laws. Since these
comments relate directly to the issue at hand, I feel I need to repeat them:
Begin===> 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 ".
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''. <===End
> As soon as you intellectually create something worth stealing, let us
know.
All right, but I'm not releasing the source code.
fmc
>
> [...]
> >> Similarly, without the GNU project Linux would not be on any shelves.
> >> It probably never would have been created.
> >
> >Then change the name of this NG from COLA to COGLA.
>
> Sounds like bickering.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:43:59 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8cfskj$9bb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <OCjYFNpn$GA.237@cpmsnbbsa03>,
> > "JOGIBA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Linux will never be a mainstream desktop OS .
> >
> > Gee, just a couple of years ago, people were saying "Linux will never be
> > taken seriously by business," and, "Linux will never be preloaded by any
> > major OEM."
>
> JOOC, is Dell actually preloading Linux? I know they SAID they would, but
> when I go to their site and configure a new box, I can't seem to find any
> that have *Linux in their OS drop-down boxes.
That same DELL is the last PC OEM to still kiss Intel's ring finger and
not ship any AMD CPU systems. You can't find DELL advertising LINUX but
their customers demanded LINUX so DELL accomidates them - quitely.
> As far as businesses taking them seriously, I still don't see any major
> industries using it for any serious tasks -- SAP, PeopleSoft, Baan,
> or other ERP type software, major databasing/datawarehousing/data mining,
> analysis. All I see it doing is web serving (if that) and perhaps a DNS
> server here or there, which, don't get me wrong, it does a really good
> job at.
IBM, nah, that's such a small company.
As for data mining, I see a lot of new work in data mining done on
LINUX. In fact, parallel data clustering methods have been developed
for LINUX.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:48:39 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Tim Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Please people, this bug only effects Domain services (LDAP) and only if the
> > controller
> > has more than 51 addreses on a single NIC. This configuration is so rare
> > that I doubt that there
> > is more than one or two running globaly.
>
> In fact, MSFT has not released a patch yet because no customers have complained.
WHo are you fooling? Someone complained which is why it is an "issue".
That it is not called a defect by MS implies it isn't getting fixed.
> Since this isn't a bug, it's merely an implementation detail, it's not worth
> fixing unless someone demands that functionality.
Sure, not one customer has complained and you know that for a fact being
you monitor all tech support questions to for Windows2000.
> However, it wouldn't be a good idea for MSFT to release a patch and thus
> encourage
> people to implement Win2K in this poor of a manor.
No it would be stupid for MS to fix something that NOT one person has
complaied about - IMHO MS customers should complain not about the defect
but about the poor attitude of MS's advocates. MS software will never
improve until you all show some moral outrage. Pout!
------------------------------
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: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 07:20:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting fmc from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 06 Apr 2000 03:05:34 GMT
> [...]
> >This assumes that there's an open source version of the software I need,
and
> >as I showed with regard to tax preparation, that's not always the case.
It
> >also assumes that I'd want to muck around in someone else's code, that
I'm
> >an experienced programmer, and that I'm familiar with the application
area
> >in question.
>
> Or have a financial interest in having any of this done, in which case you
> *pay* someone to do it, just like you do now. You're not afraid the guy
who
> wrote the tax preparation books will die, are you?
What I do "now" is buy off the shelf software, most of which retails for
less than 200 bucks. How many lines of code will $200 buy these days?
>
> >Count the number of people who can meet those qualifications
> >and you have a fair idea of the maximum potential size of the Linux
market.
>
> Including mine? All of them.
Then you're up to maybe 3% of the total market, about where Linux is now.
You may have already saturated your niche.
>
> >> Now if a commercial entity dies your screwed, well and truly.
> >
> > I'll just switch to a competing product. That usually solves the
problem.
> >If it doesn't, I'll take the day off and go fishing.
>
> HAHAHAHA. "I'll just switch to a competing product." HHAHAHAH!!
>
> What planet are you ON, man? "Just"? "Switch"? "Competing product"? I
> can't make heads or tails of that.
>
> How about if we talk reality instead of fishing. Bill Gates made BILLIONS
> knowing that you aren't going to switch products easily unless he wants
you
> to. And he doesn't.
>
> Now, if you could switch *companies* without switching *products*...
I run plenty of non MS software. IBM, Sun, Norton, Symantec, Adobe, Sygate,
Intuit, Corel, Lotus, Caere, and Xerox, are a few companies whose products
I've used. I haven't had any trouble switching from MicroSoft.
>
> >It's hypocitical for Stallman to claim protection under copyright, and
then
> >declare that software piracy, itself a violation of copyright, is no more
> >than ``sharing information with your neighbor''.
>
> No, it is a violation of a private licensing agreement between two
> individuals, and only pertains to copyright because it says at the
beginning
> of the license "This software is owned by copyright." Since your agreeing
to
> the license, this makes software copyright a self-reinforcing fallacy.
You
> aren't discussing copyright law and software, you are discussing your fear
> that programmers will starve and/or that software won't get written unless
its
> copyrighted. And that is not the case.
>
> As I've said before, if software weren't covered by copyright, it wouldn't
> *need* licensing AND YOU'D STILL BE ABLE TO PAY FOR IT and programmers
(and
> companies that employ programmers as work for hire) would still make money
> selling "it" to you. Except the "it" would be creation of, distribution
of,
> implementation of, or maintenance of software, not software itself. And,
no,
> it doesn't mean you'd have to deal with four different companies. Unless
you
> wanted to, and/or could afford it. :-)
My employer signed a 7 figure maintenance contract when they installed a
PeopleSoft system, but that business model doesn't make any sense for
shrinkwrapped applications. There's no practical way to provide individual
programming services to tens of millions of users at a low cost. And
removing copyright would accomplish what? Make it easier to distribute
bootleg copies? How many companies have signed on to that idea so far?
>
> I say let the market decide.
Good idea. You GPL to your heart's content. I'll waste my cash on
licensed, copyrighted software.
fmc
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
------------------------------
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: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 07:26:08 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:08:15 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | > Seriously though, if I had the source to Cricket Graph, I'd be
> | > compiling it right now using Metrowerks for PPC.
> |
> | Neither did I say get the source, I said make your own. I mean, that's
> | what you guys chastize us for not being able to do. Just crank out your
> | own code from scratch.
>
> Reinventing the wheel is a waste of precious resources. One of the
> founding principles of the GNU project is to make it so no one will
> ever need to re-invent the wheel ever again.
The particular wheel that CK needs is a clone or port of Cricket Graph.
Where can he find it?
fmc
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 07:35:45 GMT
In article <zfkG4.112$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8cc3hn$23k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The verdict isn't really the final factor. Microsoft will most
likely
> > be
> > > appealing, and whatever the results of that appeal will be the
real
> > > judgement. Jackson has been overruled repeatedly in the past in
> > regards to
> > > Microsoft, and it would appear to me that they have a good case
for
> > appeal
> > > considering the one sided nature that Jackson took in his
findings of
> > fact
> > > (it's nearly word for word from the governments documents).
> >
> > Hmmm. Maybe the government just were well-prepared, and 'had a
case'?!?
>
> There are things in the Findings of Fact and the Findings of Law that
are
> proveably wrong.
>
> As an example, the Findings of Law state "Neither Microsoft nor its
OEM
> customers believe that the latter have - or will have anytime soon -
even a
> single, commercially viable alternative to licensing Windows for
> pre-installation on their PCs". Yet many big name OEM's are selling
Linux
> systems in both server and desktop configurations, and have been
doing so
> for over a year in some instances. Clearly this "Finding" is wrong
and
> proveably so.
NT opportunism strikes again!
Some time ago, NT advocates claimed that Linux wasn't supported by big
companies, even though they claimed it was; the big companies where
just trying to push up their stock prices by mentioning the L-word.
According to NT advocates, Linux was not a viable alternative, so users
should off course stick with Windows.
But now, when it is convenient to claim the opposite, Linux is just Oh
so well supported by the big players...
Can't you see how Windows advocacy sucks? "Linux is not supported, but
it is well supported."
Go away, Windows advocates, and come back when you live in the real
world.
> I think Microsoft will have a damn good case on their hands for
appeal with
> all the errors in both documents that are easily proven.
Yeah, with all these Von Münchhausens telling their stories about MS
being pushed so hard by The big competitor Linux, I bet MS has a case...
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 6 Apr 2000 15:52:31 +0800
On 6 Apr 2000 04:21:54 GMT, Jeremy Crabtree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
>
>
>Welcome to the killfile...and, I'll even give you an expiration date...say,
>July...maybe by then, you'll be gone, or run out of FUD.
>
Yeah thats what I do, but I hope you'll excuse me if I don't reveal the expiry
term ;-)
Heather will be gone soon, but the underlying WinTroll, will be here, using
another name. Heck, he probably is already.
>--
>"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
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 20 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Leonard F. Agius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 07:55:19 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:18:46 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >Yea, they don't like me because I have actually tried and used Linux
> >and can speak from my miserable experience unlike most of the
> >Linvocates whose last experience with Windows was Win95 original
> >version.
> Hahahah I remember those 3 days you "tried" Linux over "Heather", but then
> you were "keys88".
>
> I recall your anguish when your printer didnt work, and I was little supprised
> how quickly you started to spew about Linux not being ready. At the time I
> thought it odd, that your transition from Linux newby to Linux hater was so
> fast.
>
> But then we soon realised, that you'd been a WinShrill from day one.
>
> So Win95 has grown up hey ???
> Since I last used it as youve pointed out, so long ago, its become usefull ?
> Now the source is free I assume ?
> Multi user ?
> Stable ?
>
> Hey thats great, maybe I can use it after all ?
>
> >
> >Bottom line is Linux is a geek system, always has been and no amount
> >of candy will help it along.
> Yawnnn....
>
> >
> >Windows has the market, and will continue to have such especially the
> >desktop/home market where Linux is laughable at best.
> Kepp laffing "Heather/Steve/Amy/Keys88" it's all you got baby!
>
> >
> >>> Bob
> >>> "There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
> >>> significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
> >>> interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
> >>> Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
> >
> >
> >Steve
>
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 3 days 19 hours 38 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
And you're typical of the technogeek/computer nerd types that the majority of
people just don't like.
--
Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
The opinions expressed are my own.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 03:12:20 -0500
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8cgj1a$1qbm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >MS-CHAP i'll grant you on, though I believe it's published. "originally"
is
> >meaningless. We're talking about Microsofts standards today.
>
> How do you get NT machines to authenticate against anything but
> a Microsoft box as a domain controller? Is that a protocol?
> Is it published? Which component can you replace to make
> the client side co-exist with standard network authentication
> methods?
MS-CHAP is an auto configuring protocol for dial-ins, not a domain
controller authentication.
> >> I realize that Microsoft publishes many of it's standards
> >> to MSDN, but protects this information from Linux developers
> >> with nondisclosure agreements.
> >
> >No, there are no such protections and no such non-disclosures.
>
> So where are the domain controller documents? And what is
> really happening when IIS talking to IE pretends to be doing
> HTTP but pops up an authentication window that has a
> third box for 'domain' information? For some reason this
> doesn't work when a standard http proxy gets between
> the two. Why is that?
I really don't know, nor do I care.
> >There's no such thing as a front page extension to HTML. Front Page
> >extensions are server only and are used for maintenance, not for display
of
> >HTML. More holes in your knowledge and more of you fabricating details
to
> >suit your needs.
>
> WHAT??? You know very well that Front Page offers by default to
> design animations and other things that can only be displayed
> by the non-standard extensions in IE.
"offers"? Isn't that a bit of an exageration? In any case, if there is any
non-HTML4 compliant code generated by Frontpage that works in IE, it's an IE
extension, not a front page one.
> Just like visual J++
> creates java applets that won't work with anything but Microsoft
> browsers.
It *CAN* generate applets that do this. It most certainly can also generate
100% pure applets. More exageration.
> Are you going to claim that is accidental? That
> Microsoft didn't realize that the average user would think
> the other products were broken instead when they had in
> fact been tricked into building non-standards-conforming
> code by these tools?
Any programmer that doesn't understand the language he's using isn't a
programmer that should be trusted. It's his or her job to know what is and
isn't standard.
> >Tell me, how does Microsoft "demand" that web pages contain ActiveX?
>
> Build something in FrontPage with animations. Build an applet with
> with J++. Are you warned that the generated code is non-standard?
What does that have to do with Microsoft "demanding" ActiveX be contained in
web pages? Can you stick to the subject you are responding to?
> >The customer buys what they want, and what they want is Windows. Thus
the
> >OEM must buy Windows. Microsoft is dependant upon customer wants any way
> >you look at it.
>
> That is clearly not true when the customers ask for refunds for the
> pre-installed gunk. Has Microsoft ever responded to these requests?
OEM's take on all support options, including refunds in order to get cheaper
copies of Windows. Thus, Microsoft is not responsible for giving refunds on
OEM copies. The OEM is. Microsoft gives refunds on retail copies.
> >> Microsoft still refuses to support NFS.
> >
> >NFS is a Sun proprietary protocol.
>
> Isn't the full spec released now?
I don't think it's documented by Sun. I think it's documented by others.
> >> They have chosen to do their
> >> own "Active Directory" instead of X.509/LDAP.
> >
> >Which is LDAP compliant.
>
> Does that mean you can now do your authentication against
> a standard LDAP server? Or just that they pretend to
> be a standard server?
If you have an LDAP client, it can connect to ActiveDirectory. If you have
and LDAP server, ActiveDirectory clients can connect to that.
> >It's completely standards conforming Kerberos.
>
> Does that mean you can use a standard Kerberos
> server as your win2K domain controller? Or just
> that they pretend to be a standard server?
Kerberos has no concept of domain controllers. As such, how could a
Kerberos server do something for which it wasn't designed?
> >> MS-CHAP is "based on CHAP",
> >
> >Inded it was.
>
> And broke everything that understood chap. As usual.
And that was almost 10 years ago.
> >CHAP was hardly necessary, nor did it preclude the useage of those
stacks,
> >since MS-CHAP could be turned off.
>
> Really? Our cisco rep says that we can't run normal chap and ms-chap
> both when authenticating dialins against a domain controller?
> Why is that?
No, you can't. But the Microsoft client can understand regular CHAP as well
as MS-CHAP. There is no need to run both.
> >Which "standard" did Microsoft introduce, but not document?
>
> Domain controller authentication. How do we use another
> type of authentication with NT/win2k clients?
Since when did Microsoft introduce that as a standard?
> >The success of the internet as we know it today is most certainly due to
> >Unix, but it's also due to Microsoft, since without Microsofts support of
> >it, it would not be anything as ubiquitious as it is today.
>
> Huh? OS/2 released full internet support including a browser while
> Mr. Gates was still proclaiming that windows would never include
> a browser for free. And MSN was expected to be a proprietary
> imitation of the internet. People have such short memories...
Mr Gates never proclaimed any such thing that I recall. Do you have a link
to that?
MSN shipped at the same time as the free IE. So, what's your point?
Are you suggesting that OS/2 would have made the internet as ubiquitious as
it is today?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
