Linux-Advocacy Digest #467, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
Re: Not so fast... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Slashdot is down (Jeff Szarka)
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Slashdot is down (Steve DeGroof)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("John S. Dyson")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Slashdot is down (david parsons)
Re: Let's POLL! (Lance Fallin)
Re: Slashdot is down ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! (Christopher Browne)
Re: Here is the solution (Marty)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:58:00 GMT
Is this an "American Dream"?
No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American pride,
but Linus is not.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Linux can't go bankrupt.
>
> Linux will never be drawn into an anti monopolistic lawsuit with the
> Federal Government, or any other Government.
>
> Linux will never be mis-trusted by the public.
>
> Linux will be around when Bill Gates dies.
>
> Linux will be around when Microsoft has long been forgotten and copies
> of
> NT are in the Smithsonian on display!
>
> Linux will most likely outlast several of the worlds governments.
>
> While it's name might not continue to be Linux, through the centuries it
> will travel,
> it will always be with mankind.
>
> Linux is like a statue which has traveled through time.
>
> Linux is like the human race - as long as there is love it will be
> there.
>
> In a strange way, Linux is like the pyramids in the respect that it will
> be
> with mankind for several centuries.
>
> When I went to the Federal Courthouse one time, I had a man explain
> to me that he works for another man who can only be fired by god.
>
> But despite that, a Federal Judge will never be able to do anything
> about
> Linux.
>
> Linux doesn't require a profit to survive!
>
> Linux just needs humans, a small group of humans, to survive.
>
> And we are the generation which has witnessed it's birth.
>
> And for that I feel privileged.
>
> And because Linux has the power of life itself, I really wonder why
> people
> still have faith that Microsoft will be with us in 10 years much less
> 20.
>
> Isn't Microsoft a corporation? There are a few corporations which are
> 100 years old.
> Don't think the average life span of a computer related corporation is
> anything to write
> home about.
>
> Microsoft is but a mere mortal where Linux is a god!
>
> And as we all know, mere mortals die.
>
> And god's can die too, if they are not loved or needed.
>
> But even gods can be forgotten for several hundred years and then
> be re-discovered and re-incarnated.
>
> No mortal has ever come back from the grave though.
>
> And by the way, haven't you slept long enough?
>
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:03:57 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 19:41:27 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> It was the Thu, 11 May 2000 12:37:05 GMT...
:> ...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> > 1) Infect source code, redistribute.
:>
:> This has been tried with the Linux kernel. The Trojan was found in
:> less than 24 hours as far as I know.
:
:And how long was it before ILOVEYOU was found? Minutes.
:
:Still, ILOVEYOU was much more obvious. How many people downloaded that
:kernel in those 24 hours? How many people didn't hear about the infection?
:How many people are STILL using the infected kernel?
I wasn't even considering a kernel virus. The source code is seen by
to many people. Infect a commonly used program. Apache for example.
Before anyone knew it'd be out in the wild already.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:05:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Tom Hanlin from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 11 May 2000 05:23:59 GMT
>On 9-May-2000, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> certainly lends itself well to these types of abuses. Bill may believe he
>> "made the PC what it is today" as much as he believes that per-processor
>> licensing isn't unethical, or as much as Al Gore believes he invented the
>> Internet. The point is that it is a fundamental principle we *must* rely
>> on that markets take care of themselves, if possible.
>
>Bill was certainly a major factor in what made the PC what it is today, for
>better or worse.
Why do you assume that?
>Having been there before there was a standard PC that you
>could reasonably write code for, or a documented set of APIs that actually
>let you do things like (gasp) write a file to a disk without using the
>vendor's languages, or develop a replaceable terminal driver ("patch these
>bytes to clear the screen") because there was no such concept as a standard
>display device-- well, y'know, I see an awful lot to like about market-based
>standards.
If any of these were market-based, then Bill wasn't a factor. If Bill was a
factor, then these weren't market-based developments. Which is it?
>The notion of Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet is a typical
>bit of Press gibberish, by the way. I'm not a great fan of the old wooden
>Indian, but the actual quote had to do with his having helped create the
>Internet by way of approving funding for DARPAnet. It's still an excessive
>claim, but nothing like the foolishness that the Press likes to claim.
I agree. I thought it was the *removal* of funding for NFSNET, but that was
questionable because of timing. Perhaps it was ARPANET funding. There was no
DARPANET, BTW, despite the routine subtraction/addition of "Defense" to the
designation of the Advanced Research Projects Agency.
>> It does, ultimately, come down to an ethical, not an economic, issue.
>> Markets exist to serve people, not the other way around. The
>> philosophy is not typically examined very often, but if the individual's
>> rights are pre-eminent over society's demands, then the customer's
>> right to a free and open market would *always* counter-balance any
>> "right" to a market, intellectual property, or even a license to do
>> business which a legal abstraction such as a "company" or a
>> "corporation" might lay claim to.
>
>Talk is cheap but, dare I say, some talk is cheaper than others. In what
>respect is it wrong for two people to do the same thing that would be right
>for one person? A "legal abstraction", goodness. You might as well put down
>the ideas of "money" or "freedom" or "responsibility"-- abstractions all,
>sad to say. For all their value, you just can't keep them in a bucket.
Have you ever anthropomorphized the "actions" of money, freedom, or
responsibility? I don't think so. These are not legal abstractions; they are
abstract concepts. I think the relevancy to our discussion should be obvious.
>> But that works for us once we mitigate the monopoly powers, just as much
>> as it has been working against us while the monopoly runs rampant.
>> Simply breaking MS into two, with appropriate controls and behavioral
>> restrictions, will be enough to let market forces overcome any grip that
>> either piece would have (or > even quite possibly both grips). Thus the
>> theory goes, and I think that the natural forces underlying capitalism and
>> free market economics are more than solid enough in principle to effect
>> this change.
>
>Honestly, as if Microsoft were a monopoly!
"As if"?
> Pity "poor little IBM", grossly
>larger and richer than Microsoft, yet piteously claiming to be a victim.
What the hell are you talking about?
>Poor little Sun ("you mean, if we call Java an Open Standard, we can't
>control it any more? Snarl"). Poor Novell ("you mean that network software
>is supposed to enforce file locking? Never mind, we'll fix that Next Year").
>The problem isn't that Microsoft is a big brute, it's that so many other
>companies are so wholly inept.
There you go, expecting pathetically simplistic anthropomorphic judgement of
companies as "wholly inept" to shed light on difficult commercial, legal, and
ethical issues.
>Sure, they're mad that they don't succeed
>better, and-- like almost all of the companies that wrap layers of copy
>protection around their software against The Legions Of Thieves Out There
>And You're Probably One Of Them-- seem to have no clue at all that their
>problem isn't due to being ripped off, it's that their products are just
>basically awful.
Do you have a point?
>> Did you think you had reason to believe that Microsoft was being
>> extremely, even criminally, anti-competitive when they toyed with
>> other developer's ability to write both OS/2 and Windows applications?
>> Did you consider Windows 3.1 a classical case of bundling, setting an
>> anti-consumer precedent for the industry that might take decades to
>> overcome. You ever see a "Windows may not run on DR-DOS"
>> scare tactic?
>
>At the time, sonny, it was "Microsoft OS/2"-- and have you ever asked of any
>other company whether they toyed with your ability to write for multiple
>operating systems at the same time just because they preferred to focus on
>one in particular? What was it you consider "bundled" with Windows 3.1...
>Solitaire?
Windows 3.1. It was bundled with DOS. It was Microsoft/IBM OS/2. Have you
ever asked a company anything? No. Only people answer questions.
>Yep, Microsoft did get dirty with DR-DOS, and that was clearly sleazy,
>although I don't think it caused great harm to either of the DR-DOS
>customers at the time.
I'm sure that's a great comfort to them.
>I owned DR-DOS myself.
I'm sure that's a great comfort to them.
>It was barely different than
>MS-DOS in any respect and far from a compelling purchase.
I'm sure we don't care for your judgement of the product, as it is meaningless
in this context.
> Its main claim to
>fame was an improved security system, which was so cleverly designed that it
>would permanently prevent you from accessing your own hard drive if you ran
>the security program without parameters (expecting a help screen, which was
>the usual default for products at the time).
You are kidding me, aren't you? There was no "usual default for products at
the time", and if there was, it certainly wasn't to display a help screen.
This practice was adopted earlier on Unix than on DOS, though, so that might
be the reason for your confusion.
> It was basically an MS-DOS
>clone with a slightly better command shell (if you didn't use any of the
>free utilities available off BBSes) and a few random utilities thrown in, at
>an unimpressive price.
Sounds a lot like the "MS-DOS was basically a CP/M clone" I hear from some of
the posters around here.
>> Forgetting entirely that in 1976 we changed the rules, and software was
>> now
>> intellectual property, and when it comes to barriers to entry and legal
>> protections, IP takes the cake.
>
>Intellectual property laws have gone back well before 1776, let alone 1976.
Software was specifically *not* protected before 1976.
>If you'd like to argue that there's no value to copyright protections for
>books or articles or music or paintings or photos, or patents for designs,
>or anything else-- well, you've got a radical notion for reshaping the
>history of the planet, and you're standing on shaky ground.
Not anywhere near as much as you suggest. That's a philosophical argument,
however. Software as intellectual property, the only issue I referred to, is
a much newer idea than the idea of software. To believe that there was some
fundamental change in thinking to cause this change is unsupported. I have
not heard of any believable justification for it, regardless of whether it was
considered to be a change in law to reflect new conditions, or a change in law
to accommodate new ambitions.
>In general, the
>strong U.S. legal protection of intellectual property has generally been
>considered one of the foundations for our innovation and prosperity.
Thank you for so gratuitously shifting the argument. But I would prefer to
discuss software.
--
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: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:07:11 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 13:41:39 -0300, "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.
:
:Maybe they should reconsider their set-up and let go
:of the hobbyist software.
:
:Francis.
:
:
It's great reading comments on slashdot about how unreliable non-Linux
software is and then having the very site that houses such comments
(and runs Linux) be down for hours.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:07:58 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when billy ball would say:
>once again, M$ sticks its foot in its mouth... here's an interesting letter
>from a M$ bottom-feeder asking ./ to censor postings:
>
>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247&mode=nocomment
The funny part of it is that several of the articles that the MSFT
representative claims infringe on their intellectual property merely
amount to:
"The executable file that you download from Microsoft comes as an
executable ZIP archive, and so you can UnZIP it to get at the
contents."
The point of the exercise being that if you _run_ the executable, it
gives a "This is a MSFT trade secret" spiel, and refuses to extract
the PDF document unless you agree to maintain the trade secret.
Of course, those of us that aren't running Windows *can't* execute it
without a Win32 environment, and would thus naturally use the InfoZIP
tools, and thus _never see the warning_.
Oh, dear, did I just infringe on Microsoft's intellectual property by
posting that? :-)
--
Coming Soon to a Mainframe Near You! MICROS~1 Windows NT 6.0,
complete with VISUAL JCL...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Steve DeGroof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:01:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"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.
>
Looks like it's a DOS attack:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36282,00.html
Gee, and shortly after Slashdot refused to remove messages at
Microsoft's request. Looks like some MS fan got a bit carried
away.
SD
--
=============================================================
Steve DeGroof ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://degroof.home.mindspring.com
=============================================================
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "John S. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 20:11:58 -0500
ax wrote:
> Is this an "American Dream"?
>
> No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American pride,
> but Linus is not.
>
Linus' nationality has nothing to do with the sometimes irritating mess that
Windows* is. Bill Gates' nationality has nothing to do with the licensing
mess
that Linux is.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | and it irritates the pig.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:13:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting J French from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 11 May 2000 09:10:06 GMT
[...]
>In the past Microsoft were definately a positive influence - the joy
>of being able to go to a client with a floppy disk, rather than RS232
>kit, not having to parameterize screen and keyboard codes, as one had
>to under CP/M - is something I *still* appreciate.
Perhaps you are unaware that Microsoft did not develop nor introduce the
floppy disk, nor have anything to do with these other things you seem to think
are part of the operating system. This is a hardware issue. This would make
you somewhat less than knowledgable on these subjects, to be honest.
>However it was the IBM PC that set the standard - not Microsoft - they
>just implemented software on a standard machine.
Then why did you say that Microsoft was a positive influence?
>When it comes to Windows - especiall Win32 - it is hard to understand
>how anyone could produce such a tangled monster. For that crime -
>regardless of their other misdeeds - I am looking forward to the day
>when they are split - not into O/S and Apps - but vertically into two
>competing companies - both with all source code.
Alas, the horrible technical monstrosity of Win32 from a knowledgable user's
standpoint is one of the few bad things that Microsoft has done which will
never be considered a crime. I don't understand the "vertical split with
initially identical source code" idea, nor why it keeps cropping up.
That bugs me. Most of the time when people make the same mistake over and
over again, I can pretty easily deconstruct the underlying flaw in their
thinking, the conceptual pitfall which catches the unaware. But in this case,
I have to admit that I am stumped.
Where *does* this idea come from? Why is it so easily considered a "good
idea", and the OS/apps split not?
--
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 parsons)
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: 11 May 2000 17:31:29 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Slashdot is down.
No it isn't.
It's probably been slashdotted because of the Microsoft demand that
they remove the copies of the MS-Kerberos spec that have been posted
there (as well as the horribly complicated techical solution [use
winzip] to get around their self-unpacking executable and its
you-may-not-look-at-this-documentation-ok?[ok] prompt), but the
site is still there and running.
>They always have had their share of technical problems,
Uh, huh, sure they have.
____
david parsons \bi/ I'll bet if they started mirroring _PC Computing_ that
\/ all that annoying traffic would go right away, leaving
them with buckets of bandwidth for the 4 people who
might care about them after the conversion.
------------------------------
From: Lance Fallin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Let's POLL!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:26:04 -0600
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Let me just say that,
>
> Just because some 12 year old kid launches a VB script virus,
> and YOUR company ingests this virus, should the employee's
> who have double clicked our the attachment using YOUR companies
> OUTLOOK EXPRESS be disciplined?
>
> {NO}
>
> Why do you figure that corporations establish policies
> such as these? Don't they realize that someday, someone,
> will indeed take this to court and challenge this.
> Do corporate institutions think they can WIN in a situation
> where THEY gave the employee in question the power to
> EXECUTE a virus from the software the corporation provided to
> ALL their employee's, trained or NOT.,
>
> {Because they are usually run by people who don't know "jack" about
> computers or the "nature" of the internet. No, they don't realize that
> THAT can happen...yet. Yes, Corporations tend to think they can win in
> any situation as the heads that run those corporations are BIG HEADed
> anyway. Legally though....they won't win a case like that.}
>
> Is it intelligent for a company to have a policy, where by,
> it is forbidden to click on any E-mail attachments?
>
> {It is NOT intelligent for policies such as the above mentioned, there
> *ARE* alternatives}
>
> Is it intelligent for a company to DRILL your systems administrator
> for allowing the virus to come into your company, even though there is
> NOTHING he can really do about it!
>
> {once again....NOPE}
>
> Does it make any sense to continue to blame the 12 year old
> who wrote the script and sent it out via an E-mail to drop
> ½ the Microsoft equipped corporations around the world?
> Shouldn't we make it a policy within the United States to
> EXPECT terrorist actions from within and abroad based on
> past actions, example, OKC? Does it make sense to you
> that corporations such as defense contractors will put
> up huge concrete barricades, and hire guards equipped with
> bomb sniffing dogs yet continue to allow Microsoft in their
> offices as the mainstay of their E-mail handling clients?
>
> {Doesn't make sense to me}
>
> Have you heard someone within your organization BLAME the
> problem we've just experienced with the ILOVEYOU virus on
> the fact that the operating system was connected to the
> internet in the first place? Does this kind of explanation
> logic seem flawed to you in any way?
>
> {Yes and Yes}
>
> Wouldn't it be MORE intelligent to run an OS such as LINUX
> ,where by, employee's could click on A script or .exe and
> have nothing happen as it WON'T run it! They can look at it
> but it won't trash out their corporate world then E-mail
> the rest of the world with a copy of itself?
>
> {Yep}
>
> How many people have you met who still don't seem to understand that
> Microsoft operating systems are based on a
> nearly 20 year old tradition of a stand alone P.C. Concept?
> That security was never an issue for Microsoft? Do you now
> understand why Microsoft says security isn't an issue with
> Windows?
>
> {Legions, hehehe yeah}
>
> I'm going to be very curious to read the answers if anybody
> responds on this newsgroup. I would love to read the answers. What
> are YOUR answers to these questions.
>
> Charlie
Good poll Charlie.... I'm a newbie and I *ALREADY* understand and *KNOW*
that Linux is more secure than WinDos.
1st) in Linux you have the whole Root, Super-User, User ... permissions
thing going on....
*THAT* works towards putting a would be *VIRUS* attack in *ISOLATION* and
doesn't mess anyone else up....that is...*if* the *USER* even had
*PERMISSION* granted by the ROOT user or SYS ADMIN to open up executables
or "what have you" in the first place.
and there are probably other checks and protections in plce that i am not
aware of yet.
there *ARE* other security issues also.... I haven't done this yet
because I live alone...but...
it's nice to know that with linux i can have it "time-out" and make it to
where some-one has to log in in a specified amount of time that I
choose...say...20 minutes or whatever...that cuts the chances down...
of course there is always ctrl+alt+back-space too...
With windos I have to completely shut down and the other person coming in
after me has to log in...it's a little time consuming and is a
pain....but if I don't do this at work then I can be BLAMED for something
.I didn't do (such as surf a "porno" site which is against company
policy) ...if someone does that on my login time then *I* get blamed for
it...so I have to log completely out...
anyway...that's *my* rather *non-extensive* response
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:16:24 GMT
In article <8ffl5j$d8r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve DeGroof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "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.
> >
> Looks like it's a DOS attack:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36282,00.html
>
> Gee, and shortly after Slashdot refused to remove messages at
> Microsoft's request. Looks like some MS fan got a bit carried
> away.
Latest newsthreads seem to confirm a DDOS. The fact that they just did
a switchover had them looking in all the wrong places for the problem.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:26:50 GMT
Looks like MSFT has a new Vice-President in Charge of Self-inflicted
Gunshot Wounds to the Foot.
Do these bozos just sit around all day smoking crack and dreaming up new
ways to piss off Judge Jackson, the DOJ, and their customers? Makes me
wonder just how many Linux advocates are in the MSFT strategic planning
group.....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:46:57 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would say:
>Looks like MSFT has a new Vice-President in Charge of Self-inflicted
>Gunshot Wounds to the Foot.
>
>Do these bozos just sit around all day smoking crack and dreaming up new
>ways to piss off Judge Jackson, the DOJ, and their customers? Makes me
>wonder just how many Linux advocates are in the MSFT strategic planning
>group.....
Microsoft was actually recruiting Linux folk reasonably actively some
months ago, presumably in order to try to construct an "anti-Linux
Strike Force."
Wouldn't it be _hilarious_ if this were to backfire severely?
--
"I'm sure that nobody here would dream of misusing the Arpanet.
It's as unthinkable as fornication, or smoking pot." -- RMS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 02:02:32 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Or how about this site:
> >
> > < http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4942/index.html>
> >
> > Where the author has this list:
>
> [large list of undocumented functions deleted]
>
> Noone is arguing that there are not undocumented functions. What we're
> arguing is that nobody can provide a list of undocumented functions that
> current Microsoft applications take advantage of. Most (if not all) of
> those API's are used by the OS itself rather than applications.
We have a utility in OS/2 called EXEHDR. It can show all of the DLLs that get
dynamically linked to the executable in question as well as which ordinals it
uses. I have to imagine that something similar exists in the Win32 world.
This could provide the requested proof.
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 02:05:08 GMT
"John S. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ax wrote:
>
> > Is this an "American Dream"?
> >
> > No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American
pride,
> > but Linus is not.
> >
>
> Linus' nationality has nothing to do with the sometimes irritating mess
that
> Windows* is. Bill Gates' nationality has nothing to do with the licensing
> mess
> that Linux is.
>
I remember a posting titled "Binary Thinking" by a sixteen year old a while
ago in this group. That posting spoke better than what I said.
>
> --
> John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | and it irritates the pig.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
