Linux-Advocacy Digest #469, Volume #26 Fri, 12 May 00 02:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Which Flavour Is Best? ("none2")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Damien)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again (Bob Germer)
More shit from Erik Fuckingliar (Bob Germer)
Erik Fuckingliar does it again (Bob Germer)
That Pig Fuckinliar strikes again (Bob Germer)
Re: Not so fast... ("Robert L.")
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Geo)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Is the PC era over? (David Huet)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "none2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Flavour Is Best?
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:24:46 +0000
In article <8fei5j$4pt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Before you start badmouthing the work of others, you should get
> informed.
repackaging RPMS and calling mandrake is what i mean.
> a) -O2 has nothing to do with "optimizing for a pentium". That's -m586
> and such.
I would like to see an actual improvement of so-called optimized for the
pentium. When I tried Mandrake on my system, it performed the same as RH.
but the way RH does things, its alot smother, Gnome/KDE and Windowmanagers
work togther. Pro-KDE Mandrake, its sucks.
> b) All code you run, runs faster if you optimize it. That's the point
> of optimizing, after all. So it's not "just the kernel".
this is mandrake propaganda, so if Redhat release a Pentium optimised
distro, would be the same as mandrake? so mandrake would be out of
business if RH released a pentium optimised copy RH?
> c) Mandrake started as a RH derivative. It still is. It also contains
> some software they are developing, like the installer, or drakconf,
> and they pay people to work on free software projects.
95% of mandrakes RPMS are from Redhat.
"and to show the world that we can make a distro, we'll make an installer
program"
>> REDHAT:
>> 5.0 major upgrade
>> 5.1,5.2,5.3,5.x minor upgrades
>> 6.0 major upgrade
>> 6.1,6.2,6.3,6.4 minor upgrades
>> 7.0 major upgrade
>> 7.1,7.2,7.x ....
>>
>> MANDRAKE:
>> 5.0,5.1,5.2,6.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,7.0,7.01,7.02,7.1 minor upgrades
>
> So, you are saying that from Mandrake 5.0, which was based on RH 5.0, to
> Mandrake 7.0, which has roughly the same versions of everything as RH
> 6.1, they went without making any major upgrades? That's magic!
I'm saying not even Mandrake 7.0 compares to redhat 6.1 let alone 6.2,
Mandrake is a mess, and isnt taken seriously at all why? Its another RH
wannabe distro, trying to target workstations, shit i would install
windows for that, and run a RH server instead... you could always install
corel linux that intends to copy the windows GUI with a hacked KDE copy.
>> but even there installer program wasnt that great, so they had to
> upgrade
>> to 7.01 and 7.02 came out just as fast, now 7.1 beta is here already!,
>> whats type of upgrading is this? cant the mandrake team wait a while?
>
> Why?
>
>>do they wanna keep you downloading more ISO images? i think so.
>
> Oh, yeah. The secret internet cabal pays them by the megabyte.
so they cant release rpm updates? they wanna go into another beta? shit
didnt they release 7.0 a few months ago? no excuse for hiking up the
version number.
>> for example RH7.0 will be a major revision, it will incorporate XFree86
>> 4.0,
> Kernel
>> 2.4.x, possibly gnome and kde2 updates.
>
> Check out the Xfree version in the Mandrake beta.
yeah, lets keep copying rawhide, modify it a little and call it our own.
>> Slackware is brilliant example of lets skip versions, what ever
> happened
>> to slack 5 and 6...
>
> Well, since a version before Slack 7 was slack 96, your argument is
> kinda confusing.
http://www.slackware.com/faq/do_faq.php3?faq=general#0 same sort of
tactic mandrake did.
>>come to think of it, what ever happened to mandrake
>> 1-4?
>
> They were "Red Hat with KDE" and used the RH version number.
again, KDE wasnt even around at RH4.2 level. it only emerged at 5.x, so
that comment doesnt hold an truth to it.
>> mandrake, it blows chunks, if u want a newbie distro, run windows,
>
> Windows is a newbie distro of linux? I learn something every day.
Mandrake attempts to be a windows clone, in the same way corel does,
unfortantely Mandrake does it very badly, broken install, broken packages,
its easily the worse distro on the planet.
>> otherwise dont bother with linux...we get so many dumb ass's asking
>> questions.
>
> On the other hand, we also get dumb asses thinking they can ANSWER
> questions. That's way worse. Most don't even believe they are dumb
> asses.
well when new users who use windows extensively decide to run mandrake and
the install program fucks out, plain and simple mandrake dont do enough
testing of there own products, they should have stuck with redhats install
so much smother. Why? maybe because they dont release a unfinished
product, trying to release it fast enough to get the 'version leader'
title. Redhat for example will not release Rh7.0 for a while yet, lots of
testing of 2.4.x and XFree4... mandrake are the version leaders, and thats
all they'll lead in.
> Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
and Helix GNOME rocks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 12 May 2000 04:29:07 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 21:13:42 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| 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?
Because an OS/apps split does not immediately solve the problem of the
Windows monopoly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 20:42:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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?
How about the responsibility of the MUA writers to make a clear
distinction between data and executable content? With such a MUA the
user can "open" /any/ attachment without fearing that something might
possibly go wrong.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
There is is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their
home. -- Ken Olsen (President of Digital Equipment Corporation),
Convention of the World Future Society, in Boston, 1977
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 04:37:54 GMT
On 05/11/2000 at 06:23 PM,
"Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You haven't proved the use of undocumented API's in any 32 bit software.
> Yet I've proven through objective 3rd party documentation that the use
> of undocumented API's in the early Windows 3.x days was almost entirely
> leftover from a time when the OS was not an OS. (proving that you lied
> about undocumented API's that you were aware of as well).
You continue to cross post into comp.os.os2.advocacy where you are most
unwelcome. Therefore, you are forever known as Erik Fuckingliar.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: More shit from Erik Fuckingliar
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 04:38:52 GMT
On 05/11/2000 at 06:28 PM,
"Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> More importantly, the issue here is MS applications taking advantage of
> hidden API's, not the OS preventing other OS's from interoperating.
More of your crap.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Erik Fuckingliar does it again
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 04:40:03 GMT
On 05/11/2000 at 06:47 PM,
"Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I know of no Microsoft applications that make use of that API other than
> through other API's like MAPI.
You know absolutely nothing, you product of a dirty test tube and a
diseased pig.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: That Pig Fuckinliar strikes again
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 04:41:04 GMT
On 05/11/2000 at 07:24 PM,
"Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> WNetEnumCachedPasswords is undocumented, but it's not intended to be
> used by normal applications. It's purpose is to be there for MAPI,
> which any application can take advantage of. Do you have any proof of
> any MS applications that use this API?
DO you have any proof you exist?
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 04:55:12 GMT
"Jeff Szarka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 11 May 2000 17:39:53 GMT, "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> :It's the same for windows, i mean, if user download anything, they can
get a
> :virus. I infected my system once, with tchernobyl, the worst is that i
have
> :virus scan, and it didn't detect it. From this time, i remove virus scan,
> :but i download less program from unknown source.
>
> Right and that is the way most Windows viruses spread. ILOVEYOU and
> other vbs viruses are a new fad. In the past, plenty of damage was
> done with more traditional viruses / trojans.
>
> :In Linux, as long as you are as user and not as root, the virus are not
very
> :destructive. In windows, any virus can attack anything. In other OS, i
don't
> :know.
>
> So if I create a user account called Jeff a trojan virus could not
> destroy /home/mp3 ? and /home/jpg ? Like ILOVEYOU did?
>
> :This is why we "don't believe in virus". If we do what we should do,
there's
> :no big dangerous virus.
>
Yes they can attack them, but only if they are not write protect.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:04:41 +1000
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The problem isn't that MS Outlook can execute e-mail content.
>
> Sorry, I disagree. Email attachments should *NOT* be executed by your
> MUA, period. If you get executable content via e-mail you should take
> the necessary steps to be able to execute it (i.e. save to disk and
> spawn it from the shell). There is a major difference between
> non-executable data which is delevered via the MUA to the application
> (.jpg, .mp3 etc) and executable content. Of course, the line is not
> distinct, as Postscript is also executable content, but in general its
> mime-type is such that the ps interpreter gets a save enivornment.
>
> All this was known and written down in June 1992 by means of RFC1341,
> (now obsoleted by draft-standard RFCs 2045-2049) but it seems Windows
> coders rarely ever read RFCs.
>
> Nearly all MUA's available in Windows will execute email-content
> directly, possibly after issuing a security warning (remember
> Happy99.exe or ExplorerZip.exe?). The only Unix MUA I know that does
> this is dtmail. But the latter does demonstrate that it's not an OS
> problem, it's an application problem.
You can pipe an attachment to any app from Pine. I'd be astounded if other
mailers don't support that.
This is basically the Unix equivalent of what Outlook is doing.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:15:10 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8fe868$p18$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8fdb70$t4g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very dangerous.
> >
> >
>
> Exactly. Which begs the question, what exactly is the point of this
> feature?
So you can do nice things like open jpegs, C files, zips etc just by
launching them from the email they arrived with.
> Sendmail has been able to pipe email through programs for
> decades. That has many useful applications, such as the vacation
> program and email filters.
Which is, to all intents and purposes, exactly what happens in Outlook.
> But what possible reason could there be
> for executing code from an email client?
For the Nth time, IT ISN'T "EXECUTED" FROM THE EMAIL CLIENT.
Outlook hands the file off to the shell saying "the user has double clicked
on this". The shell then does to that file whatever it would do to any
other file of that type if double clicked on.
>Has there been an overwhelming
> need for people to run untested programs from their mail reader? Can
> anyone ever remember being sent unsolicited software that was actually
> useful? Is that the prefered environment for launching programs in
> the pc world? Is this MS's attempt at a vacation program? Let's
> see... I wonder if the person I'm sending email to is on vacation.
> I know, I'll write a program that will be executed on his system and
> look around for evidence that he's logged on. Of course, he'll have
> to be there to launch the program in the first place, so that'll be a
> pretty good indication that he's there. Perhaps I lack imagination.
> Give me one good application for that particular feature other than
> annoying the hapless user who isn't up on every potential extension
> and what it does.
Opening a zip file from an attachment.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:21:10 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8femgg$484$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8fdju4$4ic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> I didn't, which is why I am still asking questions. Is the
> >difference
> >> >> >> between an image and a script obvious in preview mode or not?
That
> >> >> >> is, can you tell if 'open' is dangereous?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes. Different icon, different file extension.
> >> >>
> >> >> So how does that tell you what is going to happen?
> >> >
> >> >If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very dangerous.
> >>
> >> Obviously, and easy to say after the fact. How do you tell the
> >> first time you see a new type?
> >
> >How do you tell, the first time you see a .exe file ?
>
> Assuming you understand program execution at all, you know that
> the .exe file will have the power to do anything that your
> own permissions allow.
That's a huge assumption. However you didn't answer my question, I'll
rephrase it.
How does the user know what an .exe file is, the first time they see one ?
> Does outlook directly execute an
> exe file if you try to open it?
Outlook doesn't "directly execute" anything. It hands the file off the the
shell telling it that the user wants to activate it. The shell then does
whatever the default action is for that filetype.
This is, conceptually, basically identical to piping the attachment from a
mailer program (like Pine) to some other program, somethjing I imagine most
Unix mailers allow.
So, yes, if you double clicked on an .exe file it would run (after
prompting).
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:22:51 +1000
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) wrote:
> >>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$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) I think it's a
> >>good thing not to "play the same game" as Windows. Not for the next
> >>couple of decades.
> >
> >What purpose does it serve to propagate the lie about Outlook
> >auto-executing e-mail attachments? I mean, what purpose other than the
> >obvious FUD?
>
> Let's clarify what I mean with "auto-execute". I mean that the
> application you're using (the mailreader) will spawn the executable
> content by itself, bypassing the shell in the process. I don't give a
> flying hoot if warnings of potential danger are issued, it still
> executes the content by itself. That's not FUD, that's a fact.
No, it's FUD. Outlook passes the attachment to the shell, which then
performs the default action upon it.
------------------------------
From: Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:16:23 -0700
T. Max-
May I ask why you are attacking Tom Hanlin so vehemently? Whatever your
views are don't seem to jell with any coherency. Tom's work was valuable
in the early days. I would hope you could show some appreciation if you
were "there" then.
BTW looked at http://www.eltrax.com with some interest. Is this an IPO
to come?
Why the terrible attacks?
Geo
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Tom Hanlin from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 11 May 2000 05:23:59 GMT
> >On 9-May-2000, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> certainly lends itself well to these types of abuses. Bill may believe he
[BIG CLIP]
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:26:17 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8fe8i5$p6d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> > Certainly not without knowing what program is going to run. The
> > result of that is 100% predictable. What basis could you possibly
> > use to determine that code received in email is safe? Three
> > copies of the virus in my mailbox came from the company treasurer
> > who wouldn't be expected to send anything damaging. And I
> > suspect that at least some of those were from his attempt
> > to save and then open the attachment as a file. So, how are
> > you supposed to figure out what it is when every time you
> > touch it, it executes?
> >
> yup, there's a point. M$ assumes their users are so dumb they won't ever
> do anything else with their files than what M$ intended to - you can't
> even look at the files without creating a notepad icon on your desktop
> first & dragging the files to it, or changing its association. so the
> innocent user has no choice but starting the virus, if SHe wants to know
> what it is.
As usual, the FUD flies thick & fast.
Right click a .vbs file and then select "Edit".
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:34:06 +1000
"Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sheesh, I suppose you think people shouldn't be warned not to stick
knives
> > into toasters, as well ?
>
> Let's say that Microsoft begins "warning people of possible
> incompatibilities" with Be OS, because, after all, it's possible that
> there are incompatibilities. The end result is that people no longer
> use Be OS and Windows on the same hardware.
>
> Is this OK with you?
If there are any known "compatibility" problems (say Be's FAT driver had a
habit of corrupting FAT drives every now and then) then yes, it's fine with
me and I would consider Microsoft (and Be) negligent not to provide such a
warning.
There *were* compatibility problems with DRDOS (mainly with memory
mangement - ask anyone who used to play "cutting endge" games at the time).
------------------------------
From: David Huet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 05:26:08 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============11794B4F493AD41DCA48445B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
What a lack of vision. You just don't get it. The network is the computer. It may
not be the NC or the Palm, but something like this, very powerful, that does away
with the excruciatingly complex and buggy OS in a PC, will eventually take over as
the appliance for the masses. Come back in ten years and tell me that I was wrong.
JTK wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 02 May 2000 15:12:29 -0500, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Chris Kelly wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> >[pearls of wisdom snipped]
> > >>
> > >> I sure hope you're right, Petilon. Like Scott and Larry, I don't think
> > >> most people should have to bother with computing issues. Instead,
> > >> almost everyone should have an NC connected to a central server which
> > >> is managed by a team of white-lab-coat clad experts, who shall dole
> > >> out computing power only to those deemed worthy, just like in the good
> > >> ol' days.
> > >>
> > >> The massive democratization of computing power over the last two
> > >> decades truly disgusts me. Windows98? Let them use a VT102!
> > >>
> > >
> > >Pfhht, yeah, I suppose if you're absolutely made of money! VT52 is good
> > >enough for 'em. Hell, it's better than what they have in Red China!
> >
> > There's certainly quite a bit of computing power that's wasted.
>
> Quite a bit?!?! There's a HORRIFIC amout of computing power that's
> wasted! So do your part to put it to good use:
> http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
>
> > However, that's not the real problem that's relevant to an end
> > user.
>
> Amen brother. I don't know a single soul who thinks he has *too much*
> computer power on his desk.
>
> > A general purpose kludge klone is a complex beast.
>
> So's a car. But I'd rather drive than wait for the bus.
>
> Get it, 'bus'? BAHHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAAAAA!!
>
> You still got it JTK, you still got it!
>
> > Multiplying them multiply your headaches.
> >
>
> I gotta put gas in my car too. Like the man said, if ya can't take the
> heat...
>
> > >
> > >'The People's Republic of Ellison'. Has a nice ring to it, dontcha
> > >think?
> > >
> > >"But if you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, ..."
> > >
> > >[snip]
> >
> > The masses are quite often willing to be duped in such a fashion
> > in order to gain a promise of convenience or security.
> >
>
> All too willing, as is clearly evidenced by AOL's tragic success. But
> it's a long road from that to the green-screened days of yesteryear's
> dumb terminals which we now call 'NC's for some reason. A road that is
> too long and too narrow for Big Iron to traverse. No my friend, the NC
> will fail as many times as it takes for Leapin' Larry to finally get the
> message: POWER TO THE PEOPLE BABY YEAH!
>
> > Welcome to the tyranny of the majority.
> >
>
> "...we'd all love to see the plan. Ya ask me for a contribution,
> weh-ell you know, we all doing' what we ca-a-a-an."
>
> > --
> >
> > |||
> > / | \
> >
> > Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
==============11794B4F493AD41DCA48445B
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="dhuet.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for David Huet
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="dhuet.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Huet;David
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:David Huet
end:vcard
==============11794B4F493AD41DCA48445B==
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:35:47 +1000
"Chris Wenham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > "Getting convicted" isn't a behavior. It's an event that can happen
> > > to a company.
> >
> > You are an absolute silly person. Getting convicted results from illegal
> > behavior. Most companies do not engage in illegal activity. Microsoft
did.
> >
> > Your conduct here is unwelcome. This is an ADVOCACY group for ONE
product
> > and ONE product ONLY - Warp.
> >
> > Your advocacy of MS crap is a rude intrusion. Therefore you deserve rude
> > treatment.
> >
> > Go poo-poo yourself you worthless accrument of sillyness.
>
> Yes, illegal activity, such as Microsoft's, is a behavior.
Is killing someone illegal behaviour ?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:36:53 +1000
"josco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
But Microsoft could fix problems in MS DOS. They couldn't in DRDOS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
