Linux-Advocacy Digest #133, Volume #26 Sat, 15 Apr 00 02:13:22 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story) (Terry Porter)
Re: LNUX below 30 (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (David Smyth)
Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story) (Terry Porter)
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped ("JediPenguin")
Re: The truth is often painful... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story) (Terry Porter)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (John Hasler)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Bloody Viking)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The truth is often painful... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: LNUX below 30 (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Which distro for server?? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (Terry Porter)
Re: No Microsoft Certification = NO JOB! ("Ray Wright")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 15 Apr 2000 10:02:28 +0800
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:55:53 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nice post Cihl :)
>
>Thanks. :-)
>
>> Some of the Wintrolls ("Heather/Steve/Keys88") have been here 2 years and more
>> and one has to wonder just what their motivation is ?
>>
>> Me thinks they're paid trolls, cause no one can be that stupid, for that long.
>
>As i said, i think we should try to get them to
>actually *use* Linux for a while, so they can quit
They use it, they have it at home, and they post to COLA with Slrn or Netscape.
Their objective is to know enough Linux to bash it, and they are quite aware
of Linux's "deficiencies".
>their old jobs. ;-)
I don't think theyd like to loose their paycheck!
>
>--
>% make fire
>Don't know how to make fire
>% Why not?
>No match
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 5 days 15 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: LNUX below 30
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 02:07:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:16:35 -0300 <38f7a478$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Today LNUX sank below its IPO level.
>Over the last couple of months it dropped from 320 $/share to less than
>29 $/share.
Yep.
Therefore, we all should switch to Microsoft.
Spot The Flaw. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- RHAT isn't doing much better, though :-/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 22:09:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Christopher Browne from alt.destroy.microsoft; Fri, 14 Apr 2000
>>>You can live in a dreamworld where there's no change; that's not the one
>>>we live in...
>>
>>Yes, but the one you live in, from which you are deriving your examples, is
>>the one that is caught trying to battle a monopoly. You may be right that it
>>is simply an article of faith that a nicely populated, truly competitive
>>marketplace will provide much better interchange or compatibility. It seems
>>like a reasonable assumption, however, that when the rules for 'being
>>competitive' are changed from "do things well" instead of "support the
>>monopoly because your livelihood depends on it" things will become much
>>better.
>
>I would challenge the contention that "if MSFT goes away, all the
>problems magically go away."
I don't recall making that contention. Strike "magically go away"; insert
"much better".
>And I would contend that a whole lot of the claims _are_ rooted in
>that assumption.
They may look that way to you, for sure. Your contention, however, is
inaccurate. That assumption is rooted in the large number and variety of
claims; that I will agree with.
>The examples of "upgrade-go-rounds" that I cited, were _not_ responses
>to MSFT; there are quite enough of them that are either:
I didn't say they were responses to MS (its a software company, not a stock),
I said the upgrade merry-go-round (not the entire idea of file formats or the
problems they cause, nor the idea of upgrades and the potential for havoc they
also incite) was fueled by Microsoft's defense of their monopoly.
>a) Inherent to evolving systems, or
>b) In the interests of Linux vendors that would like to sell you
> another CD set every six months.
Personally, I would love nothing more than to want to buy another CD set from
my Linux vendor every six months. It would undoubtedly contain ten times more
real value at one tenth of the price than what we are forced to endure now
under MS.
>>And as for your particular example of word processing files (WordPerfect,
>>ApplixWare, KDE Office, StarOffice), the fact that wordprocessors use private
>>(not necessarily proprietary) formats is hardly support for your contention
>>that the upgrade merry-go-round is not being fueled by MS's defense of its
>>monopoly. There was such a thing as "upgrades" before MS captured the
>>pre-load monopoly. There will be things afterwards. The question is exactly
>>how and why the "force" is placed on the individual user to upgrade. File
>>formats will still change. But why does that means software does, and vice
>>versa? WordPerfect 5.1 *could read and write!* WordPerfect 5.2 files,
>>including codes not even understood by 5.1. Now that's compatibility. And as
>>for interchange, I think WordPerfect 5.1 is probably one of the most well
>>known file formats amongst word processors, after accounting for all the
>>dozens of varieties and flavors of the far less stable Word formats.
>
>Those are all fair comments; I would take the "race to
>incompatibility" back to the days when the various "tuples" of (Word,
>WordPerfect, XYWrite, WordAmiPro), (Excel, 123, Quattro), and (dBase,
>Access, Paradox) were struggling for dominance, and you'd see
>leap-frogging releases that successively added features that were
>frankly _counterproductive__ just in order to get an extra few
>checkboxes onto the PC Magazine reviews.
Yet oddly enough, I recall far less difficulty dealing with file formats. You
see, they were changing their *processing* functions and *display* features,
they weren't monkeying around using their *instrumentation* file formats to
try to lock in their customers and lock out their competitors.
Access, BTW, was never part of the database tuple, which was dBase, dBase, and
dBase, or dBase, Paradox, and eventually FoxPro, depending on who you might
talk to, until MS starting playing their anti-competitive games and gained the
power to tank their potential rivals by controlling the DOS preload market and
Windows licensing and development. Having been actively teaching almost all
of those various products at some time during almost all of the days you refer
to (though I frankly have no idea what you mean by "race to incompatibility"),
I can honestly say that you may have a point, but I don't personally recall
any notable leap-frogging or addition of features. Of course, they were doing
that, and always will be, unless the market continues to be dysfunctional.
But nothing so unusual as to be notable. Then again, what are we comparing
that time to?
>I would _not_ propose going with HTML, as it doesn't have the
>abstraction of "sheets." (I'll not call them "pages," as that would
>cause confusion :-).)
Well, that's the problem; they *do* call them pages. Both of them. I could
make a meager living just repeating the phrase "what a web browser calls a
'page', and what a wordprocessor calls a 'page', are not the same thing, or
even necessarily related."
I think the real problem is that wordprocessors haven't been sufficiently
developed to deal with what HTML calls "pages". (I'll not call them "sheets",
because you mean to refer to wordprocessing pages when you say that, right?)
Abstractions are easy; structures are hard. Word, in fact, had the best
abstraction to match the structure of HTML pages, with the "Section-level"
formatting, before they mangled that feature into insanity in recent versions.
And, of course, WordPerfect with its so-elegant 'hidden codes', should handle
the translation of wordprocessing-style manipulation of HTML 'page' documents.
I agree with your sentiment, however. Wordprocessors and web pages are not
extremely complementary in instrumentation or processing models. But I
certainly wish there was an effort to make them more similar. I think the web
could benefit from moving back towards "here's a text file with graphics and
hyperlinks" as much as wordprocessors could move towards "no, its not page
layout software, but only the real professionals care".
So we use whatever markup format TeX uses. Fine with me, if nobody else
cares. The point is, just because it is a different wordprocessor, it doesn't
really make sense to have a different file format, and its a real and
unnecessary {but currently acceptable in an ignorant marketplace} burden on
the consumer.
>The problem is that HTML just isn't expressive enough. I don't know
>if the right answer is an "XML-ized RTF;" I'd speculate that _that_
>would be one of the best options available.
How about we just make HTML more expressive. What's with the mad dash to
replace decent-if-limited standards. Wouldn't improving the standards be a
bit easier than replacing them? Less profitable for companies that want to
have "new versions" that don't provide decent value (but can be pushed on you
because of the upgrade merry-go-round)?
>>I would also suspect from the descriptions I've heard of StarOffice's
>>"integrated" approach, that you are loading the equivalent of the
>>entire MS Office Suite all at once (something I would hesitate to do
>>on a WinPC with even 128 Meg of RAM).
>
>I've used StarOffice; its huge size quite frankly frightens me. It
>appears to be competing with Word for the price entitled "Most Bloated
>Software."
As I mentioned, I believe it is competing with Office for the title "most
extensive office suite". But I could be wrong.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Smyth)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 02:07:52 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:59:38 -0800, "Trevor Fuson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8bogv2$jv9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Trevor Fuson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> : W. Kiernan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> :> Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
>> You must be joking. Word and WordPerfect are equal capable of
>> generating garbled formatting just by their pointy-clicky nature
>> (assuming the modern version of each). The difference is that
>> in WordPerfect, I at least have a chance to eliminate the
>> offending formatting and restore my document to a usable state.
>>
>> As for Word, I have yet to meet someone who *hasn't* had a
>> problem with it. The secretaries are accustomed to retyping
>
>When I worked in support 99% of the calls were WP problems. In the 2 years
>I worked in that position I recovered countless corrupted Word Perfect
>documents, and I used the Word import feature to do it.
>
>Keeping Word Perfect from crashing 7 times a day is a miracle. WP is a
>piece of garbage.
>
I have to agree. The later versions of WP were nothing more than a
support nightmare.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 15 Apr 2000 10:07:29 +0800
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:37:51 GMT,
Sitaram Chamarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:15:02 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>My final point is: I can't imagine those so-called
>>"Wintrolls" who are all over the newsgroups having
>>a lot of experience in using Linux at all. I don't
>>think *anybody* could go back to Windows
>>permanently after having used Linux for a while. I
>
>
<snip>
>So Linux folks - be careful who you piss off :-) It takes a big
>man to forget a real or perceived insult and accept the facts
>instead of digging deeper and deeper into his foxhole!
So true Sitram, by the same token, one who is afraid to make enemies, because
of what he believes, cannot be true to himself.
We simply can't be everybodies "friend".
>
>--
>Sitaram (much wiser after that) Chamarty
Hahahaha
<snip>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 5 days 15 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "JediPenguin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:13:56 -0500
Great message! I completely agree on all points!
I never knew my hardware until I met Linux. Now I'm an expert compared to my
previous state. I must point out, though, that one of the first tasks I did
in Linux was to compile my kernel, because in Lin circles, it seemed the
thing to do. I wanted to be up on my distro, so I learned how. I also agree
that it takes much time, reading, and trial && error. (You will pick up
programming. I guarantee it.) I have yet to script, but I wish to. Later.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The truth is often painful...
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 02:14:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:56:21 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Davorin Mestric wrote:
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >A lot of half-truths and diatribes here, but the simple truth is
>> this:
>> > >when it comes to business oriented desktop software Linux
>> applications
>> > >are AT LEAST TWO GENERATIONS BEHIND the stuff Microsoft produces.
>> >
>> > And twice as reliable. :-)
>>
>> on what do you base your statement? i've never seen ms word crash.
>
>I find this very statement impossible to believe.
Maybe he's never used it. :-) I've never seen Word crash, either.
But I use it very rarely (I prefer Netscape composer, good
old Notepad, or GVIM, if I'm composing HTML). Guess I've been lucky. :-)
I have seen Visual C++'s GUI crash, though, and some weird behavior
in various other places on NT 4 ("what icons did you want to view
today?" is one of my faves, as is "tooltips on the Start control bar?
What tooltips?" [*]).
Yeah, this inspires confidence. Not.
[.sigsnip]
[*] when operating properly, the tooltips can display the entire title
string of an iconified window.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NT. When you want to live the adventure.
Linux. When you want to get bored silly but just
get your work done. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 02:18:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 14 Apr 2000 08:32:35 GMT <8d6l33$7e5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You seem to thing this is a very bad thing. Do you have a better
>> idea? Now FVWM, THAT's ugly!
>
>Some of us prefer that sort of look. Some of us were happier when we
>were using twm. And if you want out-and-out good-looking WMs, they
>come much better than the pseudo-doze look...
Perhaps it's the engineering mentality. I want something I can
work or live with, as opposed to something that "looks cool".
I use FVWM for that reason. It's really really stupid, which means
I can work with it. :-) :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- whereas Windows is too smart for its own good :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 15 Apr 2000 10:16:14 +0800
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 05:15:01 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>As of now, only becuse I once had X working but don't know how I fucked it
>up, the only use I use Windows for is to view .pic files.
There is a nice cli svga pic file viewer Viking, I've used it, cant recall the
name tho.
I installed it on a cli only Linux users pc about 2 years ago, he was stoked.
Set Lynx to point to it in lynx.conf and your in business.
> Oh, I use DOS,
>to boot Linux by means of Loadlin becuse I never did figure out LILO.
Use a floppy ?
dd if=/boot/vmlinuz of=/dev/fdo
then rdev /dev/fd0 "name of root partition"
After that just boot linux from floppy, like I do ?
> I
>even used Loadlin boot floppies. That way, you can have a utility or two
>for DOS on the disk as you control the boot. And I still occasionally mess
>with QBASIC and its compiler for an occasional crude DOS utility for
>Loadlin disks. (or use QBASIC to see how a BASIC to C converter spits out
>C code)
>
>Linux is a great OS, but there's some things I'd like to figure out. One
>is making DOSemu work, so I needn't use DOS to play with BASIC to send
Perhaps I can be of assistance, just email me ?
I've used dosemu for over 2 years, and sorted out a Linux users Dosemu
problems recently. She had tried on and off to use it for 2 years!
Now Dos her eprom burner is working perfectly, under Dosemu :)
>through the converter to make C and examine to learn. But I never figured
>it out. I already mentioned LILO above.
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 5 days 15 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 23:55:02 GMT
red-5 writes:
> The free market breeds monopolies, as Marx predicted.
So far Marx is batting 0.0 on his predictions.
> If you can't see all of the glaring examples, then take one close to your
> heart- Microsoft.
Excellent example. Microsoft would not exist if there was a free market in
software.
> They do... for Christ's sake, what does the EU common agricultural policy
> do??
Another example of government interefering to prevent the free market from
operating.
> China is capitalist- it's state-run capitalism.
There is no such thing. China like most poor countries, is an aristocracy.
> Russia, which now it has embraced free-market values...
Glorification of theft is not a free market value.
> ...a very few have prospered, whilst the standard of living for everyone
> else has deteriorated.
Which is what has been happening ever since the Bolshivik military coup.
> In the majority of cases, most homeless people would jump at the chance.
> And do you think people choose to live on the streets? Absolute
> nonesense.
I agree. And there are capitalists who would jump at the chance to rent
them low cost housing, were it not illegal.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 02:36:47 GMT
Michael W. Cocke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I heard the same set of rumors. After a bit of checking, I can say that
: Win2K will run DOS programs about as well as NT4 does. (with the usual
: problems, in other words).
This shit with Microsoft sucks. Now they want to force programming
hobbyists to pay hundreds of bucks for yet another version of BASIC. No
wonder I like Linux. I guess I'll have to make a Loadlin disk with
QBASIC.EXE so I can code, route into a QB >> C converter and compile on
Linux. Fuck Megalosloth(tm).
Too bad there's no GNU integrated development environment for QBASIC for
Linux. One of the few complaints I have about Linux is a certain amount of
C snobbishness. But I already mentioned a solution for myself, a Loadlin
boot disk with QBASIC.EXE as a utility on it. Also, too bad there's no
ANSI C compiler for DOS that's GNU too except for DJGPP.
Such is the life of a Joe 6-Pack who is ambi-UNIX/DOS....
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: 14 Apr 2000 22:41:49 -0400
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 02:02:57 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>KFM puts icons in my background for some bizarre reason (is there a
>switch I need to specify during invocation?), but otherwise seems to
>function.
kfm -w
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The truth is often painful...
Date: 14 Apr 2000 22:44:26 -0400
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 01:15:11 +0000, mh wrote:
>The integration and overall usability of the M$ apps is simply superior
>and there is no way in hell I'm going to get users to convert to SO or
>Applix. Just one look at the kludgy appearance will turn-off most.
>When the rest find out that SO and Applix run slower and crash just as
>often, how far do you think those products are going to get (in their
>current state)? It gets worse when you throw in the conversion issue.
>SO does fairly well, but not with complicated files. Applix just sucks.
I've been using Applixware for 3 years without a crash. YMMV.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: LNUX below 30
Date: 14 Apr 2000 23:03:15 -0400
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:16:35 -0300, Francis Van Aeken wrote:
>I don't think NASDAQ (or any other market) has ever seen a phenomenon
>like that. To quote DefDog on Raging Bull:
It's called a "correction", stupid. When something is vastly overvalued,
it "corrects". This is not the first time we've seen a "correction".
>A couple of days ago, an advocate on this group told me that people were
>"stupid" to have bought at 300, 200, ... According to him, they should have
>bought later, when the price was 55. Glad I didn't follow his advice.
It's not clear that the people who bought at 55 will lose in the long run.
The decline is *not* driven by any problems within VA Linux. The decline
is driven primarily by a snowball effect.
>It was sad to see the advocates on this group applaud Judge Jackson's
>decision and promote government control of the software market.
Why was it "sad" ?
> Linux
>can't make it by itself?
Linux is "making it" by itself just fine.
> You guys had to go and complain to the teacher
>about that nasty bully? Well, looks like all that whining backfired.
Are you trying to suggest that "Linux" is solely responsible for the DOJ
case ? Boy, somebody sounds bitter. It's not Linux's fault that Microsoft
has been found guilty of illegal behaviour. The most vocal enemies of
Microsoft have been Sun and Netscape.
>Why is it that Linux advocates don't understand a thing about economics?
Where do you get that idea ?
>I'm sure you all have very interesting opinions about what I'm saying, but
>what I would really like to see are cold, hard *facts* that counter the
>cold, hard *fact* that LNUX is at less than 30.
Fact: No one here is going to stop using Linux because "LNUX is at less
than 30".
Fact: The decline in the value of the stock looks more like a
correction than a stock crash, ie the real value of the
company has not changed substantially between now and the IPO.
>One last thing that I have to get off my chest, why is VA Linux' ticker
>symbol LNUX and not VALX?
I don't know. I guess they thought it'd be a nice symbol to use.
>sure you suit-loving advocates don't even mind. Oh, and let's not ignore
>the fact that LNUX market cap didn't go into a black hole. Money that
>is lost by some is won by others. Who?
Judging by how bitter you sound, not you.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Which distro for server??
Date: 14 Apr 2000 22:07:18 -0500
In article <WbPJ4.92629$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Really Dumb Thing is when cookies contain any "useful" information
>of any sort.
Why? If it information about your preferences, or even a code
that says you don't need the 'new user' notifications, why
shouldn't it stored by your browser?
>They're a worthless repository for "real information" that the remote
>server would want to expect to keep _at all_ secure; the only
>_reasonable_ sort of persistent state that a server would want to
>query would be either:
> a) A transaction ID or
This means that additional information must be stored on the
server, and in the case where the server is really a load-balanced
set, either the subsequent requests must be forwarded to the
same host or all the real state information must be in a
network database accessable to all of the hosts and looked
up each time. A lot of overhead for something that can
just be part of the request.
> b) A user ID
>to use to eliminate the need to "hack" extra fields into HTML forms to
>track progress through the system.
This approach means you can't carry the information past any
purely static page, and since every page must be dynamically
generated you lose the ability to cache anything.
>Anything more than that is _inane._
Hardly... A simple example is a page of stock or futures
exchange prices with a links to charts for each symbol.
When you get to the chart display you also get a form
to redraw it with different styles/studies, etc. Now,
you'd like to have the first chart appear with those
settings the next time you click a link instead of
having to wait for it to appear the wrong way first.
How do you do it without cookies?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 15 Apr 2000 11:12:15 +0800
On 12 Apr 2000 22:31:04 -0400, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 13 Apr 2000 10:02:03 +0800, Terry Porter wrote:
>
>Repeat after me:
>
> KDE is not a Window manager.
KDE is not a Window manager, .... however it *contains* one, its name is kwm.
Appologies Donovan, I should have said:-
KDE contains a base set of applications such as a window manager
(called kwm), filemanager, terminal emulator, help system, and display
configuration.
I'm sure its a wondefull thing, and I meant no critisism of any involved with
KDE. However for myself I prefer leaner apps, such as Blackbox and Tkdesk.
(actually even Tkdesk is a bit too slow for my liking)
>
>-
>Donovan
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 5 days 16 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Ray Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No Microsoft Certification = NO JOB!
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 03:19:00 GMT
Sole sourcing is not illegal.
"Stephen Bodnar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm flamed that government offices and school boards are now
> > DEMANDING you have Microsoft certification before they
> > will consider purchasing products from you.
> >
> > My local PC vendor has told me they have been REJECTED from bidding on
> > government contracts because their business
> > doesn't have one person who holds a Microsoft license of ANY KIND....
> >
> > What will also excite you to death is the FACT that virtually
> > ALL government offices these days, Federal, State, County or City
> > ALL REQUIRE you to have Visual Basic skills before your even
> > CONSIDERED for a job as a programmer!
> >
> > Imagine that! Visual Basic, the development platform which ONLY runs on
> > Microsoft products.
>
> It is called "sole sourcing" and is illegal for federal contracts.
>
> I believe that Corel is actually suing (or considering suing) the US
> government over this matter.
>
> Stephen
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
