Linux-Advocacy Digest #183, Volume #26 Thu, 20 Apr 00 05:13:26 EDT
Contents:
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Andre Ervin)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (JEDIDIAH)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (JEDIDIAH)
Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (Bart Oldeman)
Re: Aide pour Suse Linux6.3 ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Gary Connors)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Jim Richardson)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Jim Richardson)
Re: LILO saves the day (2:1)
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (Andrew M. Kuchling)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: LNUX below 30 (david parsons)
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (david parsons)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Mayor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andre Ervin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:41:22 GMT
In article <8dffda$6un$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8df93m$hj2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Andre Ervin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > That's funny, my NT box at work behaves similarly, and we're talking
> > > about simple *Word* files here...
>
> > That's funny, my NT box at work doesn't do that. When I print a word
> > document, regardless of size, it returns almost immediately. If I want,
> > I
> > can even watch and monitor the status of the background print job using
> > the
> > status bar at the bottom as it counts through the pages being printed.
> > Are
> > you sure you didn't disable background printing? (Check
> > "File>Print>Options")
>
> If you disable spooling, you will get this lockup. However, spooling is
> enabled
> by default, so one would have to make a conscious effort to screw this
> up.
That would be my company's IT department, then. Idiots.
--
dre http://home.earthlink.net/~dre77/picks/
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:58:13 +0200
> Why should the definition of a program require it to stop?
well the old definitions of algorithm are defined through
the input - processing - output at the _end_ of the algorithm
therfore an OS should not be an 'algorithm' (if you use that
definition)
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:59:47 +0200
> > > > > >> I'm a computer scientist.
> > > > > > me too
> > > > > Really? Which field?
> > > > developing high-performance image-processing solutions
> > > > for medical diagnosis systems.
> > > Which makes you a software engineer . . . not a computer scientist.
> > well, I am working in an institut for research of computer aided
> > diagnosis,
> > imho the part of 'science' in it is realy big.
> Cool. What are you researching?
create systems to detect (indicate) breast-cancer, we are working on
lever etc. too
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:01:50 +0200
> Treating "pure SQL" as "Turing equivalent" probably requires some
> moderately perverse "programming," as it doesn't directly, I don't
> think, provide what you'd consider a "loop."
the problem with turing-complete and SQL is, that SQL does not provide
recursion. (I mean the current std.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:23:56 GMT
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:44:51 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Try running News offline...
>>
>> I am at this very moment. As a matter of fact, I have my own news server
>> running on my notebook...
>
>Isn't that a bit overkill? And it usually requires you to get a peering
>relationship with your ISP. Is that something you expect an average person
>to be able to do?
No. To an upstream news server, another news server should appear
to be just another news client quite indistinguishable from Free
Agent.
[deletia]
Your own microserver just makes sure that the subcomponents of your
news system are infact that and that you need not be tied to any
particular front end interface to access your usenet cache.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:25:04 GMT
On 18 Apr 2000 10:15:01 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >Try running News offline...
>> >
>> > I am at this very moment. As a matter of fact, I have my own news server
>> > running on my notebook...
>>
>> Isn't that a bit overkill? And it usually requires you to get a peering
>> relationship with your ISP. Is that something you expect an average person
>> to be able to do?
>
>Let the average person run PAN then.
Leafnode as it was 2 years ago was pretty much all set in terms
of the novice end user. Then or now it could use some automation
for setting up the news account and cron jobs but that's about it.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:26:46 -0500
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8di30q$175c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <PCSK4.2636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Microsoft had been promising DCOM since COM was officially launched in a
> >product in 1992. CORBA had very little to do with it, since it was an
> >extension of the existing COM architecture, not a perversion of CORBA.
It
> >didn't introduce incompatibilities or hassles for most customers, since
it
> >was designed to help them leverege their existing COM code, making it
easier
> >to do distributed processing if they were already heavily invested in
COM.
>
> So one way of looking at it is that it is designed to make it
> easy to make Microsoft products work together. Another way of
> saying the same thing is that by ignoring standards they make
> it difficult to interoperate with any other vendor's products.
COM existed before CORBA, and COM and CORBA have different feature sets that
have a certain amount of overlap. As I said, COM is a component model with
a remoting architecture. CORBA is a remoting architecture that only
recently got a component model. They came from different sides of the
spectrum. Additionally, COM enjoys a much broader level of success than
CORBA (if you define success as the amount of code making use of it).
Saying that DCOM is designed to make it difficult to interoperate with CORBA
is like saying the wheel was designed to make it difficult to interoperate
with air travel. Both do the same thing, but they do it differently and
came from different requirements.
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:04:22 GMT
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Mike Marion wrote:
> Bart Oldeman wrote:
>
> > Not wrong, just unfriendly. I mean, what's the point for Sun for keeping
> > csh if tcsh is available and using UNIX tar if GNU tar is there (and
> > all are "backwards" compatible, as far as I know).
>
> Actually I _have_ seen a case where a file tar'd with Sun's tar didn't properly
> untar with gnutar.
Then that's a reason to keep Sun tar around as a second alternative for
those special cases where gnutar doesn't work.
> csh is kept because there are slight differences between csh and tcsh, and some
> users prefer csh over tcsh.
Some do. But in my experience most do prefer tcsh over csh. So why put in
csh as a default? Just because it always was? Then we could also have had
plain sh as a default.
> > True if you are root. But if you're on a 10 MB quota you can't just
> > install all GNU utilities next to your normal work (this of course has
> > everything to do with a friendly admin).
> > (not that i'm in that situation anymore).
>
> I agree about the gnu tools, but I've never known an admin that didn't put the
> vast majority of them on a box. I mean solaris without gnu tools has a lot of
> shortcomings.
So a Solaris admin should do more than a Linux admin, in the sense that
the former should download all the gnu tools seperately?
Of course in the environment where Solaris really shines (large multi SMP
servers etc.) you don't want to have your average linux newbie as an
admin, so your comment makes sense in this respect.
> So you might think, why doesn't sun write their own? Probably
> because there's no point; the Gnu tools already do it. As for include...
> they're starting to.
Ha! They do :-) That's different from abraxas' answer, but we'll see.
> > a) setting your .login in such a way that you get tcsh or bash by default.
>
> Uh.. chsh?
Doesn't work in the case I described. And "passwd -e" doesn't let me
change either.
> I've had so many users try what you're saying, but doing it in their .cshrc..
> then wondering why the can't login (when they're actually running an infinite
> loop).
Yes, I've seen this as well. But if it's the systems policy to only have
csh as the default shell, then you have to fiddle around with .login and
.cshrc and many users don't really know the difference between these.
Even then it's not trivial: you need to put both
setenv SHELL /opt/bin/tcsh
and
exec /opt/bin/tcsh
in your .login to let your {dt,x,whatever}terms get the right shell.
All in all I don't want to complain about specific sysadmins in a public
forum, so I only speak about certain unnamed systems.
(private email, pub talk, fine, but not here)
> > b) trying to convince your sysadmin to install tcsh or bash if they are
> > not there ;-)
>
> Very few admins will not, and Sun might not have the right to install tcsh out
> of the box.
Ah here might be the possible explanation ;-)
Bart
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aide pour Suse Linux6.3
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:28:45 -0300
Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8dfmmm$l99$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stephane mon cher..
> C'est group est en anglais.. c'est pas un group francais.. Ici il n'ya
> quelquen que parle francais et tu peux m'incluir.
Il y a des gens ici qui parlent français, mais Mig Mig a raison, la langue
"officielle" de cola est anglais...
Francis.
N.B. You're doing pretty good, Mig Mig. Except maybe for the accent... ;-)
------------------------------
From: Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:46:57 -0400
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Craig Kelley at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/18/00 12:23 PM:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors) writes:
>
>> Hypothetically speaking, when was the last time you or anyone you
>> personally know looked at the Linux Source?
>
> I did last week.
>
> I wanted to figure out why I couldn't have more than 8 SCSI CD-ROM
> drives attached to the system.
>
> Regards.
There are several Posibilities
1) You develop Linux
2) You are lieing
3) You are dillusional
I have no reason to beleive 1 or 2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:11:01 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 23:57:09 GMT,
Christopher Browne, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Richardson would say:
>>On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 05:26:26 GMT,
>> Christopher Browne, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>>>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Richardson would say:
>>>>>How can you be an anarchist ans support capitalism at the same time?
>>>>
>>>>How could I be an anarchist and oppose it?
>>>
>>>I thought that anarchism formally _was_ somewhat antagonistic towards
>>>the notion of "capital."
>>>
>>>Or am I perhaps missing the _degree_ of antagonism?
>>
>>an-archos, without a ruler, neither pro nor anti capital, but
>>orthogonal to it. I am opposed to being oppressed by anyone, whatever
>>their professed political leanings.
>
>The material I've seen on anarchism has been pretty antagonistic towards
>both capital and money.
>
>According to the Anarchism FAQ...
>
>G1. Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?
>
>Yes, for two reasons.
>[1. Interest/rent/dividends being considered an extortive form of usury, and
> 2. They desired a society with no capitalists and workers, only workers.]
>
>Another position expressed is that anarchism seems to involve a desire
>for a lack of hierarchy, which is antagnonistic to the hierarchy
>established by the separate roles in capitalism.
>
>The FAQ also indicates opposition to private property, as it represents a
>source of authority.
>--
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:12:15 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 06:44:28 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Richardson would
>say:
>> >On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 05:26:26 GMT,
>> > Christopher Browne, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > brought forth the following words...:
>> >
>> >>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Richardson would
>say:
>> >>>>How can you be an anarchist ans support capitalism at the same
>time?
>> >>>
>> >>>How could I be an anarchist and oppose it?
>> >>
>> >>I thought that anarchism formally _was_ somewhat antagonistic
>towards
>> >>the notion of "capital."
>> >>
>> >>Or am I perhaps missing the _degree_ of antagonism?
>> >
>> >an-archos, without a ruler, neither pro nor anti capital, but
>> >orthogonal to it. I am opposed to being oppressed by anyone, whatever
>> >their professed political leanings.
>>
>> The material I've seen on anarchism has been pretty antagonistic
>towards
>> both capital and money.
>>
>> According to the Anarchism FAQ...
>>
>> G1. Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?
>>
>> Yes, for two reasons.
>> [1. Interest/rent/dividends being considered an extortive form of
>usury, and
>> 2. They desired a society with no capitalists and workers, only
>workers.]
>>
>> Another position expressed is that anarchism seems to involve a desire
>> for a lack of hierarchy, which is antagnonistic to the hierarchy
>> established by the separate roles in capitalism.
>>
>> The FAQ also indicates opposition to private property, as it
>represents a
>> source of authority.
> Exactly, Anarchists oppose all kinds of hierarchy and authority
>*especially* the ones found in capitalist workplaces. Private
>comnpanies are probably among the worlds most tyrannical and
>undemocratic organizations.
>
>Vlad.
So is that an authoritative statement? are you seriously trying to
tell anarchists what they must do ? :)
It's like herding cats.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LILO saves the day
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:36:09 +0100
Craig Kelley wrote:
> It was obvious that the MBR was hosed -- it was an IDE drive, so no
> low-level format was available, so I booted up with a Linux floppy and
> installed LILO on the MBR with one partition "DOS" to hda1. After
> reseting the machine, everything worked.
Don't most BIOSs provide an IDE low level format utility. Mine does (its
dog slow), but it rescued a disk that got trashed my win95.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock,
which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew M. Kuchling)
Date: 18 Apr 2000 15:12:47 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> Because GNU is not on the same development path as them. Theres no
> reason to include it. I can install as many or as few GNU toys as
> I like. Solaris is used for a variety of reasons, only some of which
> are concurrent with the reasons commonly attributed to linux.
This is silly; no one buys Solaris because it has a really good diff,
and Sun could avoid having to put as much effort into maintaining the
basic tools on their own. The tools would also be more powerful,
because the GNU tools were explicitly written to avoid arbitrary
limitations. For example, not too long ago I needed to do a
search-and-replace in an XML file, using sed on Solaris. Some of the
lines were really long, and it turns out Solaris 2.6's sed has a
256-byte buffer somewhere. A line longer than 256 characters had a
space inserted at the break point, which occasionally turned
<category> into <cate gory>, and broke the file.
The fix was to install and use GNU sed, which worked correctly. Now,
what does Solaris gain from having a buggy version of sed, and having
to repair this bug themselves, when simply including GNU sed would
solve the problem for them?
--
A.M. Kuchling http://starship.python.net/crew/amk/
It is not that I wanted to know a great deal, in order to acquire what is now
called expertise, and which enables one to become an expert-tease to people
who don't know as much as you do about the tiny corner you have made your own.
-- Robertson Davies, _The Rebel Angels_
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 19 Apr 2000 04:59:41 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors) writes:
>Hypothetically speaking, when was the last time you or anyone you
>personally know looded at the Linux Source?
Looked at *some* linux source code --- probably a week or two ago.
Looked at *all* linux source code --- I don't personally know anyone who
has done so.
Looked at *significant amounts* of linux *kernel* source code --- a couple
of months ago.
>A backdoor hidden in the THOUSANDS of lines of code in the Linux
>Kernel would go unnoticed untill someone outside hacked it as long as
>it generated no network traffic.
I don't think so --- let's, just for the argument, say there are 10 million
linux users. Let's further say the 99.9% of them look at kernel code less
than I do. That would leave 0.1%, or 10,000 people who look at kernel code
at least as much as I do. The kernel currently has roughly 2 million lines
of code. I have almost certainly looked at way more than 200 of those lines
in the last month. Even allowing for overlap, 10,000 people looking at the
kernel at least as much as I do will have an extremely high chance of
spotting that backdoor within a month. And that is assuming you can even
get it past Alan Cox and Linus "if I can't understand it, it's bad code"
Torvalds in the first place.
Bernie
--
The acid test of any political decision is, 'What is the
alternative?'
Lord Trent
British Cabinet Secretary 1963-73
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:20:10 GMT
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:10:36 -0700, Mayor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund) wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> >"People" generally being Wintrolls who find that to be an
>>> >undesirably complicated task...
>
>>> I haven't yet met a Windows user who thinks its at all
>>>complicated.
>>
>>Really? You should read this forum more often.
>
>I'm not sure I could. ;)
>
>>
>>> But doesn't it seem odd to you that an OS whose main purpose
>>>was to shield users from having to figure out settings expects
>>>them to know about memory management?
>>
>>Strngely enough, I never found that to be a difficult thing to
>>do. Even when I was fumbling around with my first mac, the IIsi.
>
>At you shouldn't have. It isn't difficult. The real question is
>why was it made that way? MacOS shields the user from how the
Like DOS, it likely reflects an initial design flaw. Comparatively
speaking, it really isn't such a great burden. Furthermore, the
end user still needs to be aware of computer resources in the abstract
and manage accordingly.
>machine works in almost all ways but this. I'm sure there was a
>logical, reasoned thought process that arrived at doing the
>memory that way. I wonder what it was?
>Of course we'll never find out here. Maccies and Mac users will
>claim its how Apple does it so its the best of all possible
>worlds and Mac bashers will use it as a point to hold up MacOS
>for ridicule. This atmosphere generally doesn't lend itself to
>serious fact finding of this sort.
It's a minor annoyance. It's somewhat of a big fat festering
zit on the face of Apple but not quite the seeping with
gangrene stub of a leg that once was there that are some parts
of WinDOS.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: LNUX below 30
Date: 18 Apr 2000 11:29:41 -0700
In article <38f7a478$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was sad to see the advocates on this group applaud Judge Jackson's
>decision and promote government control of the software market. Linux
>can't make it by itself? You guys had to go and complain to the teacher
>about that nasty bully? Well, looks like all that whining backfired.
The antitrust laws in the United States predate the software
industry by about 70 years. If you do business in the United
States, you need to obey the law or you might get some unpleasant
surprises when the state notices. And, not surprisingly, if
you're a monopoly you have a somewhat more restrictive set of laws
that you have to follow.
Sorry you bought VA Research at 40. But it will probably be up at
40 again soon, unless the market takes another torpedo.
____
david parsons \bi/ It's all funny money until you sell the stock.
\/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: 18 Apr 2000 11:50:52 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>HORSE POOP!
>
>Your trying to WHITE WASH the story.
>
>They put in a secret BACK DOOR for the sole PURPOSE of FUDDING NETSCAPE!
[etc etc]
I think that perhaps it's time for you to stop having that
second cup of coffee in the morning.
____
david parsons \bi/ Tea is poison, coffee's worse/
\/ We drink water, safety first!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
From: Mayor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:35:12 -0700
In article <gmgravesii-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, George Graves
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mayor
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In article <gmgravesii-
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, George Graves
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <gmgravesii-
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>George Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >But all is
>>>>> >not lost , I think with OS X the Mac will finally crawl
>> >> >out from under the rock a bit.
>>
>>>>> A BIT! It should leave that Windows crap so far back in the
>>>>>dust, that M$ will be struggling for years playing catch-up
>>>>>and copying OSX features and look-and-feel.
>>>>
>>>>Hrmff..
>>>>
>>>>"Windows2002" will sport a new and "innovative" GUI that
>>>>coincidentially resembles the Aqua interface. Underneath
>>>>this "groundbreaking" new interface, the same old WindowsX
>>>>will be lurking. The result will be yet another kludgy, ugly
>>>>OS from Microsoft, and the Wintrolls will be all over
>>>>CSMA telling us how much better it is than the lousy ol' Mac
>>>>because it supports the floppy drive or some such thing.
>>>>
>>>>OS X will probably leave Microsoft in the dust, but don't
>>>>think for a second the WIntrolls will admit it.
>>>
>>>Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing that
>>>Apple could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on CSMA is to
>>>roll over, belly-up and die. With Apple gone, they wouldn't
>>>have that little nagging voice in their head that keeps
>>>saying "did I choose the wrong platform?"
>>
>>So you think that no other platform would exist without Apple?
>>How does Apple provide needed sustenance for Sun, SGI or any of
>>the several OSs that run on Intel HW?
>
>Frankly, I laugh when I hear the Mac called a "niche computer".
The Mac is a niche computer.
The Mac is a niche computer.
The Mac is a niche computer.
That's three laughs for George! ;)
>SGI, Sun and any of the several OSs that run on Intel HW, now
>THOSE are "niche computers"
But what niches they are!
>with market shares so low, they don't even cause a blip on
>the radar.
You are not seriously arguing that marketshare determines
usefulness are you?
>>>Because with no Apple, there would be only ONE platform and
>>>the Wintrolls could sleep secure in their beds with no nasty
>>>Apple confusing them with that pesky Macintosh.
>>
>>Who's confused by Macintosh, George? I was considering a Sun or
>>SGI along with the PC when I bought my computer. Apple wasn't
>>even in the running.
>
>Now, those ARE "niche computers."
In some very nice niches!
But I believe the original point was whether or not alternatives
to Windows existed apart from Apple's offerings not who's niche
is nicheier.
>
>>And you might have a point about no one knowing that anything
>>but Windows and Mac existing if it weren't for the fact that
>you can get Linux at Wal-Mart these days.
>
>To run what on? A server? Word Perferct, GIMP? And you talk
about there being no software or hardware for the Mac?
I don't believe I've ever said either myself. But don't you
think perhaps your claims about the lack of SW/HW for Linux
might eerily parallel the same claims WRT the Mac?
>--
>George Graves
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
