Linux-Advocacy Digest #458, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 13:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped (John Culleton)
Re: Window managers (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Sierra Tigris)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Slashdot is down (abraxas)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Chris Wenham)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:42:07 GMT
In article <F%MR4.38156$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joseph Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Conclusion, don't even try to install LILO on your computer unless you
> either have a totally blank hard disk or one of the following: DOS or
Win95.
Simpler solution: Don't install lilo in the MBR. Use a partition
instead. I install mine on /dev/hda1 which is one of my Linux
partitions. Sometimes I boot my msdos partition fro lilo first and then
use loadlin.exe because I still have peripherals that have to be
initialized in MSDOS.
John Culleton
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Window managers
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:51:05 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 07:33:57 -0700, John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On odd days I run kde apps under fvwm2. Fvwm loads faster, and
>scrolling between desktops is possible. But kde plays that neat
>music when you fire up ;-).
I run WindowMaker, the GNOME panel is autoloaded into the corner,
I have a file manager originally coded in Xt (still had offix dnd
though) but has moved on to gtk, and I run various other apps
including ones from KDE and GNOME.
gnorpm is even functional these days.
Occasionally, I'll start up kfm or gmc (the KDE and GNOME file
managers, respectively).
Take away the newer, spiffy GNOME/KDE apps and replace them with
some athena apps or console apps and that was my desktop 3 years
ago running on a 32M 486.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:55:35 GMT
Paul 'Z' Ewande=A9 posted May 11 re: Re: How to properly process e-mail
|And more over, in OE [I suppose its no different in Outlook] , the *.gif a=
nd
|the *.jpg are decoded, you can see them at the end of the message.
=09Actually, that's only if you either open the eMail, or look at it in
the preview plane, which means that it can "run" it's something like
javascript, which is, IMO, extremely bad.
--=20
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:56:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Billy Gatos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 11 May 2000 10:25:29 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>JUST IGNORE MICROSOFT.
>
>AND MAKE OTHER PEOPLE IGNORE MS TOO.
How?
It's not like they're *not* successful at selling their stuff.
(This doesn't mean their stuff is good, of course. :-) )
I would hope that new installations think long and hard before
putting Microsoft stuff on their desktops, but old and established
businesses that already have Microsoft stuff on their desktops have
to either preserve their current investment, or show a good reason
(return on investment -- in this case, the investment is setup,
learning, and engineering time; the return is increased productivity
because of less downtime because of stupid worms, memory leaks, and
(allegedly??) bad programming -- but how does one measure that?)
to replace it.
And then there are those who require documents (resumes, for one)
in Microsoft Word format. (As if a proprietary document format
such as MSWord is some sort of standard or something -- although
Postscript (was? is?) also proprietary, as I understand it).
Don't get me wrong; I more or less agree with you. But it's
easy to say "ignore Microsoft" (or post on Usenet, for that
matter :-) ); it's a little harder to up and do it. But I also
hope the latest ILOVEYOU et al virus (released *accidentally*??)
is a wake-up call; from what I've seen of the code, almost anyone
with some knowledge of programming could have written this bug.
However, I for one prefer to accentuate the positive in Linux, rather
than eliminate the negative at Microsoft. The latter leaves users with
less information and possibly fewer options ("OK, Microsoft is bad, but
you haven't told me what's good about Linux"). :-)
(I'll also note in passing that http://www.winehq.com (WinE) is still
active, changing, and getting better at emulating Microsoft Windows
on Linux+X (and possibly on Linux+something else) all the time. :-) )
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> On 9 May 2000 14:19:49 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>If MS created anything on the Linux platform, it would almost be
>> >>garaunteed to be of the same buggy nature as most of thier current
>> >>Windows software.
>> >
>> > *snort*
>> >
>> > You're too young to have seen Microsoft being competitive.
>> > They're a hell of a lot bigger, smarter, and scarier than
>> > anyone in the Unix world, and when they have to compete
>> > they can crank out some pretty fine code.
>>
>>
>> Yeah...
>>
>> How long did it take them to surpass NS after undermining
>> Netscape's availablity to pay for development?
>>
>> How long did it take them to achieve parity with a competitor
>> they couldn't bully out of existence? (intuit)
>>
>> How long have they been trying to out-Unix Unix?
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> Color me skeptical.
>>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:04:10 -0700
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > MS DOS had technical problems running windows therefore the comment
> > about DR DOS is a trivial exercise in playing games with semantics.
>
> What? That statement makes no sense.
It does and it is still true.
DRDOS and MSDOS BOTH had techncial problems with windows. Claiming there
were technical problems with DRDOS doesn't justfy what MS did to one
product but not the other.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:58:22 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 15:50:11 +0200, Peter Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 1 May 2000 23:36:55 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Full Name wrote:
>
>>> All my family and friends use Win95/98 without problem. I guess they
>>> are lucky to have someone around who is good with computers...
>>
>>Its a lie!!!
>>
>>Just today i had to rescue a customers PC. The problem: She had not
>>reformatted the machine for 3 years.. so IE 5 could not be unistalled ,
>>protocols could not be added...etc. etc. Solution reformat the crap and
>>reinstall!!
>>This is sad. I allways recomend my customers that they should reformat and
>>reinstall after 4 months if they install many programs in their machines.
>>Unfortunattely NT and W2K use the same strategy with the registry, so it
>>will certain be corrupt after 3 to 4 months if youre an average user.. so
>>my solution will be "REFORMAT AND REINSTALL"..
>
>
>Normally, I don't like getting actively involved in this advocacy crap.
>But here, I get angry!
>
>Although I am not the one you are talking to, I feel offended by your
>attack "it's a lie!!!".
>
>My personal experience as both a win95 (version b) and linux user for
>many years now has been that I *never* *had* to reformat or reinstall
>windows95, never, not a single time!
...only took one power hit for me.
The corporate admins (NT users mind you) recommend to only let
a Win9x go no more than 6 months without a reinstall.
Needless to say, none of the corporate desktops run Win9x.
>To be more precise (and look at "I never *had*"):
>I *once* reinstalled win95b, but only because I was in error (in my
>early days of using windows95) and thought I was shut off my system due
>to my playing with policy editor; later, I found that I would not have
>needed to reinstall...
>Besides, I had to reinstall linux several times due to apparent kernel
>bugs in older kernels which resulted in serious ext2 filesystem crashes
OTHO, I've frequently used dev kernels (both 2.1.x and 2.3.x)
with no such problems under Linux. I've also at times allowed
the Windows users in the household to 'power-off' the Linux
installation when sharing it with a Win32 distro on the same
disk.
>or complete disasters. But fortunately, with my current kernel 2.0.36
>(yes, I know, but there are reasons for it and preventing an upgrade to
>2.2.*) this seems to be a thing of the past...
>
>As I see it, it is a sign of incompetence (either of the "expert
>adviser" or the poor user) to see no other solution than to reformat or
>reinstall, once there is a problem with win95.
>This is primitive behaviour, sorry, but that's how I consider it.
Sure it is.
However, it is foolish to consider the typical end user of
Win9x to be enough of a guru to fix a system in any more
complicated fashion. Meanwhile, Unix stores enough of it's
state outside of the core system files such that completely
blowing away the core OS and reinstalling has little to no
impact on installed applications.
Whereas it's not even recommended practice to upgrade between
Win 3.1 -> Win95 or Win95 -> Win98.
>With both systems I am a user who really uses and stresses his system, I
>can't count the times I installed, uninstalled, reinstalled, modified...
>all kinds of software (under win95 as under linux).
>
>If you really know how to deal with your system (backing up your
>registry whenever you change something (installing, uninstalling); not
>cancelling scandisk; defragging from time to time; throwing away
>software which always causes trouble; etc...) you won't see a *need* to
>reinstall or reformat...
...sounds like a lot of work for an 'ease of use' 'consumer'
system. I torture my Linux machines in all sorts of various
ways without needing to bother with DOS style babysiting.
Besides software shouldn't 'cause trouble' sufficiently enough
to harm the OS in any way. Otherwise, the OS is broken in some
fashion and certainly needs to be fixed.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: 11 May 2000 16:59:19 GMT
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Slashdot is down.
> They always have had their share of technical problems,
> which is quite embarrassing for a technology forum.
Its working fine for me. Its been a little shakey for the
past couple of hours, probably due to the extraordinary rise
in traffic due to microsoft's latest incredibly stupid move.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 11:50:26 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>
>> Is this the 'easy' part of the windows interface? What if you've
>> never seen a .vbs before. What should have prepared you to
>> expect something different to happen than with the .gifs you
>> get all the time?
>
> How about common intelligence? To _not_ open a file you have no
>clue about until you get its contents verified, by someone you trust? HOw
>about some personal responsability people?
Why give people an email system that they can't use? The only way
to verify an attachment would be to compare it to a copy you had
received through a more secure means - and if you have that, why
bother with the email copy? And who do you trust? My copies came
from the treasurer of the company. Please explain the foolproof
procedure that doesn't cripple email usage completely before you
spout about the recipients having made a mistake. What happened
was perfectly natural and predictable given the system design.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 11 May 2000 11:54:37 -0500
In article <gIsS4.497$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >All you conspiracy theorists are welcome to take this challenge.
>> >
>> >Just *one* API call is all I'm asking for here...
>>
>> Can you write a backup domain controller capable of syncing
>> contents with an NT domain controller? Or a replacement
>> primary controller that can sync to a Microsoft backup
>> controller?
>
>That's a protocol, not an API.
Even more reason to document it and allow alternative implimentations.
Where do I find that documentation?
Les Mikesell
[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
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:03:48 GMT
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The defendent is part of the process of a conviction. Defendant behavior
> during the act of conviction, a trial and sentencing, has a great impact -
> for example doctored videos, memory lapses, denying e-mails.....
Yes, it does have influence. Can we be clear that the act of
conviction is still not a behavior of the defendant, but a behavior
of the court?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:04:51 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 17:28:55 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the Thu, 11 May 2000 07:47:26 -0700...
>...and Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That the German government is restricting
>> free speech and free religion in this way is frightening given what was
>> happening there 2 generations ago.
>
>The Scientology issue is completely unrelated to religious freedom. If
>you seriously think that the "Church" of Scientology is a religion in
>any way, you must be a damn fool. Actually, Scientology is the
>essence of capitalism. It's a corporation that produces nothing, makes
>enormous amounts of money and expands all the time, paying its
>"employees" next to nothing (instead, cashing in money from them!).
>It's unsurprising that this organisation has emerged from the US, is
>most popular in the US, and that it has established a firm foothold in
>the traditionally greedy personnel of Hollywood. (Scientology's ethos
>is clearly being transported by Aaron Spelling's TV shows, to
>mention only one example. Spelling is a Scientologist. A Scientologist
>with an ugly daughter maybe, but still a Scientologist. ;-)
>
>As for free speech, we handle that a bit different in Germany than in
>a lot of other countries. The simple reason is that we want to avoid
>"what was happening there 2 generations ago" from happening again. The
>restrictions in our constitution become plausible from the context of
>its creation and the fact that Germany's responsibility towards the
>international community is paramount to our constitution. This is why
>we've got constitutional articles of "eternal durability" which are
>considered eternal and unchangeable truths and which cannot be
>replaced or changed in any way. This is also why the German people
>cannot give themselves a dictatorial government even if, by majority,
>they wanted to.
>
>It's clear that you probably don't understand that, coming from "the
>best country in the world" where the general stance seems to be that
>the 5.8 billion non-USAmerican people living on this planet are
>completely irrelevant and that your country has never done anything
>regrettable or even only wrong.
Also, people dellude themselves by ignoring history. What was
happening in Germany in the 1930's was not merely limited to
Germany. The sorts of genocide and repression instituted by
the German regime at that time were far from unique. They were
just made more effective by applying the tools of an industrial
age to the problem.
The ghettos were around long before Germans started depopulating them.
Germany was just a little bit more desperate than the rest of us.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:08:45 -0700
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > MS documents also show the fact that DR-DOS had problems with Windows.
> >
> > So too did MS DOS have technical problems with windows. One supposed
> > benefit of tying DOS 7.0 to Windows4.0 (windows95) was the reduction in
> > technical problems between the MS DOS and Windows.
>
> Untrue.
What I said is True.
> MS originally intended to completely remove MS DOS from Windows.
> That turned out to not be feasible due to compatibility issues. There is
> lots of evidence that suggests MS intended to remove DOS completely.
That's a lie. MS had publically spoken about and developed DOS 7.0 and
Windows 4.0. They later merged the two products into windows95 so you
lied when you said they originally indented to remove DOS.
> What do you call no-charge 30 day technical support and a 60 day money back
> guarantee, if not a warranty?
If I called it a warranty I'd be lying.
------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:12:01 -0700
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Which version of Windows?
>
> 3.0 and 3.1 of course.
I used windows beginning with version 2.0 and the API he worte about was
in version 2.0.
> > You argued against MS. The undocumented APIs were even more critical
> > when the OS was not as complete. The competitor had an even greater
> > disadvantage.
>
> It wasn't an OS then.
A useless Semantic argument: Windows3.0 was also called an environment.
> > The API I refer to was relevent in v2.0 when RAM allocation was very
> > inefficient and MS EXCEL was newer and was in competition with WINGZ.
>
> I dont recall Wingz ever existing for Windows 2.0.
I don't care about your mental problems.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
