Linux-Advocacy Digest #440, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 11:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (rj friedman)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (rj friedman)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joe Ragosta)
Re: linux as Netscape platform (bill davidsen)
Re: Linux will remain immune (Full Name)
Window managers ("Alberto Trillo")
Here is the solution ("Alberto Trillo")
Moderated group ("Alberto Trillo")
Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Lord Williams")
How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: What have you done? (Tim Kelley)
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped (Frank McKenney)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Salvador Peralta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:19:51 -0500
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39195d3d$21$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 05/09/2000 at 04:20 PM,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> > They admitted the absence of a wall as far back as 1995. See James
> > Gleick's 1995 article on Microsoft, which discusses this subject:
> > http://www.around.com/microsoft.html
>
> Actually, the admission was in a book which came out well before 1995
> called Hard Drive.
Hard Drive was published in 1992.
Mike Maples, in the December 30th, 1991 edition of InfoWorld stated that
there was no such chinese wall.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:08:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>
> > >>Gnome may be *decent* for extreme newbies,
>
> That's rather extreme, and I can't agree with this at this time. I
could agree on
> previous Gnome releases.
>
> > but its stability, reliability and
> > >>consistency have been in question since its very first day. And
deservedly
> > >>so.
>
> Yes, but at least you aren't telling us that the other alternative,
KDE, is ultra
> stable either. I don't know if you've noticed, but lately KDE apps
can't seem to
> make up their minds in using qt-1.44 or qt-2.1. Nothing is more
frustrating than not
> being able to run one or the other KDE apps simply because you don't
have the
> required qtlib version. And it is a pain to keep qt-1.44 & qt-2.1
seperated since,
> linkwise, they conflict.
Here's how to do it for KDE apps.
Get qt-1.44 sources from TT.
Get qt-2.1 sources from TT.
Untar both under, say, /usr/src.
You will have /usr/src/qt-1.44 and /usr/src/qt-2.1 directories.
Go into each, and build Qt as the README says.
Do nothing else (specially don't do a make install).
Now, whenever you want to compile a KDE app, set QTDIR to the right Qt,
or use the --with-qt-dir= option for configure.
No big deal.
> I don't seem to have these type problems with Gnome.
Well, that's obvious since Gtk+ has not had a major version in a while.
GNOME had these problems when swithing from Gtk+ 1.0 to 1.1 and again
when switching from 1.1 to 1.2.
Have we already forgotten the 127 threads like "I installed GNOME and
now Gimp is broken" (and viceversa)?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 10 May 2000 13:20:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
In <paaS4.373$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
><jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
>
>> Here is a list of most of the files the patch disk replaced.
>>
>> DISPLAY SYS 4752 27/03/92 6:00
>
>Windows 3.1 was released in April of 92 IIRC, your files are dated from
>March. How would it have meant trouble for anything?
Are you seriously suggesting that software released on April 1, 1992
would have a date stamp of April 1, 1992?
There is the small matter of testing involved. A concept which may be
new to some Windows developers.
Then tested software also needs to be sent to suppliers for manufacturing
into disketes before the product is released.
It's staggering that you can even try to make any point from the date of
the file mentioned when it is within a week or so of the release date.
--
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: 10 May 2000 13:26:09 GMT
Marty, I used to think you were merely a moron, but it turns
out that you are a RAT. A term that someone else called you
but now I see is true.
So, Myrat (the congruence between your name and your nature
was certainly no accident), when you write to me, you will
only be squeaking to yourself. I have nothing to discuss
with a RAT.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 10 May 2000 14:29:05 GMT
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/10/2000 at 01:07 PM,
> jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) said:
>
> > (BTW, I was right before: it was Erik Funkenbusch who has this
> > interesting attitude with shifting definitions)
>
> Erik Fuckingliar is a damned liar with Criminal Bill's shit all over his
> face.
>
Erik apparently has a very low opinion of other people's memory and
their grasp of the rules of logic.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:34:31 GMT
In article <5y4S4.356$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the concept of a chinese wall is pretty ludicrous these days
> anyways. Don't you think that developers who once worked for the OS
> division might eventually work for Applications? People move around a
> lot.
> Lots of people that work at MS once worked for other companies and vice
> versa.
>
> It's getting to the point that cross-pollonization is getting pretty hard
> to
> stop.
Nice strawman.
No one's trying to stop cross-pollinization.
They're just trying to stop the illegal activities where Microsoft is
the only one who can take advantage of it.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: 10 May 2000 13:41:53 GMT
On Tue, 9 May 2000 21:23:13 "David T. Johnson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
¯> Thank you. Now I'm just left wondering if RJ could have come up with that.
¯Whistler's Mother could have come up with that. It was reported in
¯about 10 zillion publications only 2 years ago.
Now you see why I used to think he was a moron (knows
nothing, yet has an opinion on everything). I know better
now - he is not a moron - he only acts like a moron in order
to act out his true nature - being a RAT.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:48:42 GMT
In article <39194b99$5$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/10/2000 at 04:31 AM,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-
>
> > > OK... but why a "Chinese" wall?
>
> > It's a reference to the great wall of china, which was intended to stop
> > the barbarian hordes from getting into china, but also stopped the
> > chinese from getting out.
>
>
> Once again you prove that you cannot tell the difference between a lie
> and
> fact. The Great Wall didn't prevent Chinese from leaving China. It only
> went along the northern border. There was no wall on the west, south, or
> east.
ROTFLMAO.
So all they had to do was walk 3,000 miles carrying a year's supply of
food on their backs.......
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: linux as Netscape platform
Date: 10 May 2000 13:47:04 GMT
In article <8edjvq$g1i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I have had troubles with Mozilla over firewalls. I would guess
| that this has been corrected by now.
Firewalls or proxies? An application should never see a firewall if it
is working right, but proxies... there have been issues there.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
"Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979"(tm)
The hardest test of maturity is knowing the difference between
resisting temptation and missing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:57:40 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 13:55:47 +1000, "C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Quote:
>
>"Linux and much of its application software is written and distributed by
>people who understand the value of open source. Put bluntly, most developers
>in the Linux community would not be stupid enough to create a program as
>insecure and dangerous as Outlook. And if anyone were foolish enough to do
>so in the open source community, such a design would not be likely to
>survive the peer review it would receive. "
>(http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/09/linux.immune.idg/index.html)
>
>And I say
>
>> >> >So everyone invlolved with sendmail over the years must stupid then??
You're very correct in your assertion.
Mandrake NFS has been patched to death. And it still doesn't work.
Ask any experienced programmer what their worst nightmare is and
they'll tell you its debugging and maintaining someone else's code.
This is why the "open source" argument fails.
Linux is a classic example of this. Been around for almost a decade
and yet still cannot adequatly perform the functions that closed
source UNIX has had for years.
------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Window managers
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:05:34 GMT
Hi everyone. I've been thinking about KDE and GNOME and at
how each other window manager is changing its code to make it
GNOME and KDE hints compatible, and I've decided that I do
not like that. I have nothing against the fact that desktop window
managers are a modular part of them, but why traditional window
managers must fix themselves to be used as desktop window
managers. I think that as desktop environments advance, integrating
window managers will be harder and harder, and then, why can't we
have two window managers series ? Window managers one and
desktop window managers on the other side. Besides, there are a lot
of window managers out there that overlap funcionality with desktops.
Let's face that iceWM or Enlightenment to say two does not need
anything KDE or GNOME have to offer, and on the other side, using
them as desktop window managers overlap a lot of things. Yes to
free choice, but ... is it really free when KDE and GNOME are
now the facto standars ?
------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:05:35 GMT
Let's begin assuming that from Java one can program whatever
one want, and since there are not only Windows JDK, but a lot
of compilers (like IBM, Symantec or Inprise to say some) targeted
to Windows, why should anyone want to use Windows undocummented
API calls when Java can just be used to everything.
If you do not think Java servers for all, well, don't you think that
there
are enough shared libraries and enough API calls to let you do whatever
you want to do ? What can Microsoft use undocummented API's for ?
Do you think there is a call start_word() ? Well, Microsoft does a lot
of awful things, but why the hell does it need hidden API's ? Let's be
serious, and if so, what advance can those hidden API's give to their
applications ?
------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Moderated group
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:05:35 GMT
I think this group is to discuss and to express opinions, thoughts and
knowledge, and even when one person is not in our line, while that
person remains polite and try to give us data and personal opinions, we
should respect him/her. I say this, because I've been reading a lot of
injuries at the "Why only Microsoft ..." thread ... and I do not like them.
------------------------------
From: "Lord Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:29:07 GMT
Technically Solaris is more advanced especially in
features for working on very large systems -- ones with dozens of processors
or even clusters of ones with dozens of processors. It "scales" much better
meaning that as processors are added performance goes up. This is never
linear, i.e., 8 processors won't give you twice the performance of 4, but for
most operating systems, especially NT but now, anyway, still Linux, you get
zero additional performance after 4 for NT and probably the same for Linux.
Solaris is also much much more stable. Big Solaris systems attain what's
known as "5 9's" -- 99.999% uptime. That comes out to 5 minutes of downtime
per year.
Still Linux has some nice advantages of its own. It has lots of driver
support. It easily outshines Solaris in support for the types of devices
you find on PC's -- the myriad of boards. Someone somewhere has built a
driver for just about anything you might have. It also has desktop tools and
utilities. Solaris has become mainly a server operating system so people
aren't building office sorts of products for Solaris. There is some activity
in products like this for Linux, but still nothing like what's available for
Windows, not even 1%. Solaris is free for individual use but it is not free
for commercial use which Linux is.
However the downside is that there is no market value for anyone programming
in Linux or anyone administrating networks in Linux ( Its the same problem with
BeOS). However there is a great market value for Solaris OS platform
programming and administration fields. Solaris programmers are more sucessful
programmers than linux programers, their pay salery is far greater.
This info is %100 right!
--
Williams
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 10 May 2000 14:37:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Back in January there was a thread where I mentioned the possibility to
automate processes in Unix via e-mail. As an example I noted a case
where certain attachments were auto-printed. Back then the Winvocates
labeled me "foolish" to auto-print email attachments (possibly triggered
by their envy of lacking such functionality in Windows-based MTA's), so
I had to make it explicit that OF COURSE one does sanity checking before
autoprocessing email (see <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Now Microsoft Outlook offers you *auto-execution* of e-mail content
*without sanity checking*, and Erik Funkenbusch tells us that until
Linux offers this "user-friendlyness" it will never "play in the same
game" as Windows? (<mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) I think it's a
good thing not to "play the same game" as Windows. Not for the next
couple of decades.
Cheers,
Rob
--
"Software is like sex; it's better when it's free."
-- Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:38:47 -0500
Full Name wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 May 2000 22:52:18 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >finding a Windows NT admin that does not say that NT is crap compared to
> >Linux... the only thing they miss is functionallity provided by some
> >specific applications not existing
>
> I managed 5 Unix boxes (Sun 330, Sparc 2, Silicon Graphics IRIS and 2
> IBM RS6000's) for a couple of years back at the beginning of the 90's.
> For the last six months I've been responsible for 2 Ultra 10's, a
> Sparc 10, an old HP, a Dell Linux box and one Dell NT server. In the
> between time I was C++ programmer who, in my spare time, managed two
> NT networks.
>
> I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the Linux box is a
> piece of rubbish. I would get rid of it in a heartbeat. We purchased
> it as a cheap alternative to an Alpha box for number crunching.
Impressive. Every now and then one of these anonymous shills
will, in a fit of red-faced exertion, squeeze out one of these
little nuggets. If this guy shits out stuff like this, you have
to wonder what he eats.
Linux is slower than NT
NT never crashes
Reinstalling is the fastest way to fix a problem
Slavery is freedom
Black is white
yah whatever ...
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank McKenney)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: 10 May 2000 14:53:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
--snip--
>ALL operating systems have to install something in to the MBR of a particular
>partition.
>
>The difference is that MS operating systems will also wipe the boot sector
>to prevent the use of a foreign boot manager.
Minor terminology correction...
For IBM-compatible PCs, hard disk partitions do not have MBRs; there is
exactly one MBR (Master Boot Record) per drive, located at CHS 0/0/1
(the first sector on the drive).
Partitions contain their own "boot sector", or PBR (Partition Boot
Record) (IIRC), the first sector located _within_ that partition.
We now return you to your original discussion...
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:06:15 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately, the article had nothing to do with m$ being a security
risk from the software standpoint and everything to do with m$
incorporating some of scientology's philosophies into their corporate
model. The german government has already given us enough intolerance
for the next 2 centuries, IMHO. Let's not applaud them for giving us
more.
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> HEY! WAY TO GO GERMANY!
>
> They are a security risk and they should be delt with!
>
> I know.
>
> Charlie
>
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
