Linux-Advocacy Digest #405, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 07:13:07 EDT
Contents:
RE: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! ("Alberto
Trillo")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Virus on the net? (Rob S. Wolfram)
KDE / Gnome and lib dependencies (Re: KDE is better than Gnome) (David Faure)
Re: Shithead Distribution? ("mws")
RE: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Alberto Trillo")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (M. Buchenrieder)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Full Name)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Karen Mansbridge-Wood")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 08:08:05 GMT
> Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
> piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
> sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
> to operate correctly.
I am sorry to say this, but you're a really fool if you can not get
installed
GNU/Linux (any current distro) in 30 minutes. Even Slackware 1.0 was
a pleasure to install compared to Windows and DOS installations (by
that time it was DOS 6.0 and Windows 3.1 ... uhhh). What's more, I think
no one can be such as stupid, so you're just not telling the truth, why ? I
do not know.
> Is this what you call a next generation OS?
It is the best Unix around, it is the most powerful, the more flexible
and the
more secure OS over the world. Open source power is something your little
mind can't even start to understand. Why are you spending your time talking
about such a "shitty" core ?
> What generation is that? The year 2025?
The generation of freedom. Open source is the best thing from women. :-)
> Shitty looking fonts under X windows,
Why the same graphics card and the same monitor using the same truetype
fonts does look different ? Do you even know what you are talking about ?
> Netscape?
> Netscape sucks under Windows also. NOBODY uses Netscape.
Netscape is not as good as IE for me. That does not mean that I have to
change to Windows. There are plenty of browsers, and to say the truth I use
to launch Lynx or KDE Browser whenever I want. Netscape 6 and Mozilla
are coming soon ... free choice ... may be we have even IE at GNU/Linux ...
> Security?
> Every fucking port is WIDE OPEN WITH A DEFAULT MANDRAKE INSTALL...GOOD
> SHOW!!!!!
Filtering inside the kernel, and a command line tool (ipfwadm ->
ipchains -> iptables) that lets
any brained man or woman just typing "man ipchains" and knowing what he or
she wants to set
up firewalling and masquerading in threee hours. The power of being able to
open or close whatever
you want on you own computer. Again the power of freedom. Use the source
Luke !
> Just setting up a simple network with a secure firewall has led me
> down a garden path of no less than 10 poorly written How-to's and a
> trek to numerous websites for information much of which is either
> outdated or in conflict with the last website I visited.
Again, you are really bad at that.
> Example, try the FAQ link on the samba website. It is a dead
> link...Great show guys..
> Apache seems to have been hacked, as I doubt they run Microsoft Back
> Office.
Every OS can be hacked; no one claims GNU/Linux can't be hacker if it
is badly rooted. Anyway, Apache.org used FreeBSD, and unlike other
companies explained what happened to them to be hacked instead of hiding
the facts.
> Tasks that are soooooo easy under Windows are a nightmare under Linux.
> Networking for example....
Yeah, autoexecutable code within email, stupid macros, badly designed
scrippting codes, backdoors, a kind of mix between DNS and WINS
(anyway, what a shit !), and finally ... the BSOD's (5 or 6 a day at each
Windows 3.x/9x; even more) and 5 or 6 a week under NT/2K, that
is a pleasure uh !
> A couple of clicks and it works under Windows. How is this even
> remotely possible under Linux?
Open source conflicts with your closed brain concept, it is a pity for
you boy. If you know how to read, you know how to use GNU/Linux,
just as it goes for cars, TV's, videos, even chairs ...
> Quite frankly I really don't give a flying fuck because Linux has
> pissed me of so much with it's archaic style of doing things that I
> intend to let every single person I know the truth about Linux and
> spread the word that LINUX SUX to all that will listen.
Archaic ? Hehe, GNU/Linux was capable of reading FAT32 before
NT could, and that without Microshit help. Unix created the net. The only
one sucking here is Microsoft and some hardware vendors, as well as
some stupid people that is happy being stolen by a shitty company and
besides supporting them.
> It really does suck the big Onion.....
Anyway, just each of the guys that prefer GNU/Linux have to work
and solve 9x and NT/2K problems (work, friends, etc ...) and know
deeply about those OS's too, besides GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, and
other Unix's; on the other way, people that bash GNU/Linux just do
know a little about Microshit and nothing about what they are talking,
in your case : GNU/Linux. How the hell can you give you opinion
about a code you have not been able to install ? Tell us please !
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 03:23:08 -0500
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In this argument, those folks now have an ally in Bill Gates, of all
> people. How so? Perhaps you've noticed Microsoft's response to the
> DOJ's breakup proposal. Gates is claiming that it's only possible to
> have good innovation when the people who write applications are in the
> same company as the people who write the OS. To separate them, Gates
> says, is to do significant harm to innovation. To accept Gates's logic,
> we also have to accept the conclusion that third party software vendors
> cannot possibly innovate as much as Microsoft's programmers, since only
> Microsoft's programmers have the direct contact with the OS team that
> Gates claims is required.
You are misrepresenting what he said. He said that the OS would not be what
it is today without having taken code from it's applications and rolled it
into Windows. He did not say that Office could not be done without access
to Windows, he said Windows could not be what it is today without access to
Office (and other) source code.
You seem to be saying that Gates is claiming that Office couldn't be as good
without access to Windows, but that is not what he's saying.
His claim is that all software developers benefit from the work done in
Microsoft application divisions, since Microsoft takes that code and makes
it available to 3rd parties via Windows API's.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: 8 May 2000 06:50:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>You are claiming that the elm and pine do not have common and well known
>filenames for their aliases?
Yes, I am, because it is configurable. I use elm at the Leiden
University. Can you tell me in what file the global aliases are stored?
BTW, why don't you send me a mail with a bad attachment to my Leiden
address? I swear I will just enter on the attachment and tell you what
happens. The address is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Or if you wish to try it with Mutt, send it to the address I'm using
here. It's valid.
>> Powerful and easy? Hell, yes. At least I don't think it's rocket
>> science. Easier than a GUI? That would depend on the task at hand.
>> Easier than a GUI for Joe Sixpack? Hell, no.
>
>You really think someone capable of writing something like this couldn't
>figure out the grep and awk syntax to scan your home directory for a regular
>expression?
ITYM "grep and find syntax" ;-) Of course he should be able to.
>> >> In any case, it is far more difficult than the way ILOVEYOU does this:
>>
>> And if you once again fail to read correctly, the phrase "more
>> difficult" here compares the way LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs retrieves
>> the info to the way you suggested (well known and common names etc.)
>
>No. You said "far" more difficult. You printed 3 lines of VBScript code,
>the same could be done to scan a users home directory for an email regular
>expression in a single shell script line.
You quoted a sentence from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to
make a suggestion that grepping the files in the homedir is more
difficult that the VBScript. As usual, you *ARE* twisting words, because
the comparison was with searching the aliases files as you suggested. As
a matter of fact, the very sentence in front of the one you quoted was:
>> >> I think it would be a lot easier to grep all files in a user's
>> >> homedir for an email-like regexp.
*I* suggested that grepping the user's homedirectory would be easier
before you ever used the word "grep" in this thread.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
"[Windows NT] version 5.0 will build on a proven system architecture
and incorporate tens of thousands of bug fixes from version 4.0."
-- <http://www.microsoft.com/y2k.asp?A=7&B=5>
------------------------------
From: David Faure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: KDE / Gnome and lib dependencies (Re: KDE is better than Gnome)
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 09:49:40 +0100
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Thu, 04 May 2000 14:07:52 GMT...
> ...and Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Ok, sorry, but I'll go a bit offtopic for the thread :-)
> >
> > > /opt/enlightenment/bin/enlightenment depends on 20 libraries;
> > > /opt/gnome/bin/panel depends on 31;
> > > /opt/gnome/bin/nautilus even depends on 44.
> >
> > Hey, interesting numbers! Just for kicks:
> >
> > [ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kwm` |wc -l
> > 10
> > [ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kwin` |wc -l
> > 17
> > [ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kicker` |wc -l
> > 19
> > [ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kpanel` |wc -l
> > 10
> > [ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which konqueror`|wc -l
> > 22
> >
> > I'll remember this the next time people say KDE's components are too
> > interdependent ;-)
>
> Well, the reason for the high number of dependencies of, say, the
> GNOME panel, compared to, say, kpanel, is the greater modularity of
> the supporting libraries GNOME uses. For example, kpanel only links to
> libjpeg. Probably, other image formats are loaded by loaders built
> into libqt or one of the libkde*s directly.
Yes, some in libqt and some others in libkimgio, which links to
libtiff, libpng, libjpeg etc. if necessary. So the difference
is not there.
> (Or maybe you don't even
> support formats other than JPEG and XPM while we can load about every
> format in the known universe, frankly I don't know.)
Indeed, you don't seem to know ;-)
> panel links to libtiff, libjpeg, libpng (thus, also to libz); it links
> to libgdk_pixbuf, thus it links to libart_lgpl, too etc. etc. For
> legacy reasons we still link to libgdk_imlib, we'll drop Imlib with
> GNOME 2.0, however.
>
> Also, the GNOME panel uses CORBA. ORBit and GNORBA means another five
> libraries. Using GTK+ means linking to GDK and glib, too.
>
> GNOME has got panel applets, KDE hasn't yet; that means linking to one
> more library etc. etc.
KDE has that now. The number for "kicker" above should be the one
to look at, since kicker is the replacement for kpanel and it
- supports applets, internal and external. But those are dlopened shared
libs, so they don't appear in ldd's numbers.
- definitely supports all image formats. As dlopened shared libs too,
so same remark. Now a lib for an image format is opened only when
necessary.
KDE programs definitely had a lot more libs to link to when we were
using CORBA. This is not the reason it was dropped, but it's a nice
side effect of not using it anymore.
Anyway. The point in this sub-thread wasn't to start yet another flame
war
and try to state which desktop env. is the best, but simply the
observation
(from actual facts) that people arguing against KDE that it has too many
dependencies are just wrong.
> As a whole, it's hard to compare. However, we've contemplated lumping
> large numbers of support libraries into one huge "libgnomesupport.so"
> for easier distribution and to make the amount of libraries look less
> daunting. But I don't think the GNOME project wants to impress people
> by a seemingly low number of dependencies, anyhow that support library
> idea was dropped AFAIK.
Yeah, this doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
--
David Faure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - KDE developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mandrake
See http://www.kde.org/kde1-and-kde2.html for how to set up KDE 2.
------------------------------
From: "mws" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shithead Distribution?
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 04:58:08 -0400
Your not actually taking this idiot seriously,are you?
Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I am trying to run Linux on an 8088 computer with a 300 baud modem and
> >5 megabyte hard disk. I have been told about a distribution of Linux
> >called Shithead. I can't seeem to locate this anywhere on the net?
> >Could some kind soul offer assistance?
>
> Might I suggest Minix instead? It's open-sourced (finally!) and runs
> surprisingly well on a 640k 8086 from two 720k floppy drives. You should
be
> able to run it off of floppies for experimentation, but it's unlikely that
> you'd be able to install much more than the contents of the boot floppies
in
> 5Mb. There's also ELKS, a Linux-alike for the 8086/8, but it's not as
proven.
>
> You might consider just selling that 5M drive as a collectible (I'd think
an
> original ST-506 would do well) and buying a $400 or so low-end machine
from a
> local cloner to run a full-scale Linux distribution.
> --
> Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
> Colony name not needed in address.
> DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+
Fo++
> R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: RE: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 09:37:49 GMT
Anyway, the whole world (not only software) is moving to the existence
of two companies having a theatre competence between them and being
happy to have only one and known enemy. Coca v.s. Pepsi, Playstation
v.s. Nintendo, Intel v.s. AMD, and the so ... sometimes (by now) some
third company borns and then either buys or is bought by one of the other
bigs. It is something we all must fight against.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 06:48:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
[...]
>Sure, it could happen in linux and probably eventually WILL happen in
>linux---as long as common unix concepts like WHEEL are not supported
[...]
Please learn something about Linux prior to making unsubstantiated
statements like that. Whether a command is supporting the "wheel"
concept or not is a question of the command itself. The GNU version
of "su" doesn't, but nobody forces you to use it. Download the non-GNU
version and use that one instead.
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 10:45:50 GMT
On 07 May 2000 13:52:32 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Total cost: $0 (we have a site license for Mcafee, and I have no idea
>how much the central IT people pay for it). It's nice having UNIX
>protect the Outlook users ;)
>
We run an NT sever with Norton's AntiVirus 2000. We set the
environment variables TMP and TEMP on the client workstations to point
to a share on the NT server. Any infected documents received by
Outlook are clobbered before they can be opened.
All we need do is keep the copy of Norton's on the NT server updated.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 8 May 2000 11:03:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
In <wIuR4.75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>His claim is that all software developers benefit from the work done in
>Microsoft application divisions, since Microsoft takes that code and makes
>it available to 3rd parties via Windows API's.
Only some of it...
Of course, Microsoft's apps developers have a head start on everyone else
because they have inside knowledge of the development of the API,
and can even make a request for development of a specific API to suit
their application. And they may conveniently forget to tell any competitiors
(competitiors? :-), what a notion...) about this API.
Given Microsoft's track record for sabotaging competitors, I would not
be surprised if there were plenty of APIs which revealed whether the
app was Microsoft friendly and if not, some random spurious msgs
would be generated causing that app to fail or perform badly.
It happened when DR-DOS tried to run Windows, although it wasn't
random in that case. Who is to say MS Word runs better than Lotus WordPro
simply because Windows has some built in impedance for WordPro.
It's this sort of trick that Microsoft is very capable of pulling.
This is exactly the reason why the DOJ is correct in splitting the two functions
up and removing the unfair advantage which Microsoft apps have always
had with respect to the API.
It would be interesting to conduct some tests to see if Netscape performed
unfavourable when compared against Internet Explorer when both access
a Web site hosted on MS IIS, and then contrast those results with tests
when a site is hosted on something else such as Apache.
--
John
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: "Karen Mansbridge-Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Karen Mansbridge-Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 11:05:49 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 03:43:31 -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:
>If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, Gates is making a
>case that the best thing for consumers would be to have a single
>software company--Microsoft.
And I suspect Bill Gates actually *believes* just that.
Megalomaniacs often are deluded in that manner, imagining that
their control is something that benefits everyone else and is
therefore completely justified. They are often genuinely
horrified that anyone would question that assumption.
Karen
___________________________________________________
Don't waste your time telling the newsgroups
you support OS/2, tell IBM. They *do* listen:
http://www.ibm.com/scripts/email-lvg.pl
___________________________________________________
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
