Linux-Advocacy Digest #477, Volume #26 Fri, 12 May 00 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Things Linux can't do! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Sam)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Slashdot is down (Jason Long)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (rj friedman)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Bob Hauck)
An honest attempt ("Clifford W. Racz")
Re: Computer Terms.....(was "Re: MS caught breaking web sites") ("Sean")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Sam)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Clifford W. Racz")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (No Name)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Sam)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Tim Kelley)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:25:09 GMT
On Fri, 12 May 2000 00:58:00 GMT, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is this an "American Dream"?
>
>No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American pride,
>but Linus is not.
...about as much as Hitler is Germany's pride.
>
>"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
>
>
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Jim <[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: 12 May 2000 11:28:13 EDT
In article <MqRS4.656$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Windows ran on less than 1% of machines then. It can hardly be
> argued that Windows was a monopoly then.
He sorta has a point here. Windows was such a bogus attempt at a useable
GUI (since the Mac copy hadn't yet taken place) that the M$ monopoly was
still shouting "GUI is a toy for wimps and women" with one voice.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:30:49 GMT
On Fri, 12 May 2000 13:29:48 GMT, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8fg81e$um$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> In 1996, Bill Gates was effectively imposing a "tax", collecting
>> a substantial portion of revenue from every PC user. The PC
>> had as much impact on trade and commerce in 1996 as ink and paper
>> had in 1776. King George taxed ink and paper, and tea. At that
>> time, ink and paper were essential to commerce, and tea was an
>> occaision for conducting business.
>
>At least Bill Gates was able to impose "tax". How Linux companies
>are going to "tax"? Should "free" wonderland be "tax" free as well?
If you want to blather on about "American Dreams", you need
to acknowledge the basic historical fact that Americans
rather dislike taxes of any kind. So, someone coming up with
a sustainable 'no-tax' system would be really quite admired
by the 'leave us alone so we can rape the peasants' Big
Business pseudo-federalist types.
>
>Linux companies are still in painful search of "sound business model".
>Red Hat had switched from "software" company to "service" company,
>and now it's switching from "service" company to "venture investment"
>business. What's next? Wal-Mart? KFC? .....
So? The whole point of Linux has always been that it doesn't
need to be a business at all in order to be sustainable.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 01:31:07 +1000
On Thu, 11 May 2000 23:41:17 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Linux can't go bankrupt.
It's worth nothing that's why.
>Linux will never be drawn into an anti monopolistic lawsuit with the
>Federal Government, or any other Government.
It will never become a monopoly, it will never even become mainstream.
>Linux will never be mis-trusted by the public.
Who they say ?
>Linux will be around when Bill Gates dies.
Yer right, we are going to be using Linux in 40-50 years!
Compare the Computers of 50 years ago to now, then extrapolate the
increasing rate of change, then tell me we will be using Linux, Liar.
>Linux will be around when Microsoft has long been forgotten and copies
>of NT are in the Smithsonian on display!
We still remember Standard Oil and Rockerfeller, very well.
>Linux will most likely outlast several of the worlds governments.
Big deal !!, The Italian government is lucky to last the end of this
week
>While it's name might not continue to be Linux, through the centuries it
>will travel, it will always be with mankind.
Now you are just getting silly !!!!!!
>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.
Coo Coo Land
>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.
You feel sort of like Karl Marx or Lenin do you ? Look what happened
to their dream.
What you say ? Look it up
>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.
Well I have news for you, Microsoft won. yep it won the whole deal. A
monopoly means you are the winner. Everyone else gives up and says you
are too good, we need to restrict you for us to survive.
Linux is free.
MS gives away IE and they are the bad guy ? Get real !!!
>Isn't Microsoft a corporation? There are a few corporations which are
>100 years old.
Debeers, CocaCola, Loyds, Mercedes Benz etc etc
Oh I left one out,....... sorry....... IBM
>Don't think the average life span of a computer related corporation is
>anything to write home about.
Digital Computers were only created 50 odd years ago.
>Microsoft is but a mere mortal where Linux is a god!
>
>And as we all know, mere mortals die.
Corporations are immortal
>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?
Lay off the sauce man.
Sam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:35:13 GMT
On Fri, 12 May 2000 09:18:01 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Solaris on Sun hardware works.
>
>Linux on Intel hardware doesn't.
>
>Is there a need to say any more?
Certainly. For one thing, you're either leaving out the 'why'
of why Linux x86 doesn't work or just plain lying through your
teeth.
[deletia]
"doesn't work" could mean anything, even things that are
trivially disprovable.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Jason Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:37:19 GMT
Chris Aakre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know hotmail runs on FreeBSD, but microsoft.com? I don't think so.
Netcraft.com tells me it's IIS/Win2K.
>>
>> 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.
> If you even read any articles before you post, flamer, you would realize
> it was a DDOS attack. Even open-source software can't defend against
> that. Oh yes, also, please remind me, what is hotmail.com and
> microsoft.com run on? What? Open-source apache? What? On BSD, which is
> binary compatible with linux? Ohh... thats right...
--
Jason Long
Webmaster http://www.streetrodstuff.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: 12 May 2000 15:37:24 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 22:59:36 Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
¯> So, which is it? Are you a moron or a RAT. Don't be shy -
¯> squeak right up.
¯Do you enjoy beating your wife? Yes or no? Don't be shy - squeak right up.
Isn't conditioning amazing? First they condition the RAT to
type; then they condition the RAT to be a parrot.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:35:48 GMT
On Fri, 12 May 2000 15:04:41 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
No, the equivalent of what Outlook is doing would be for Pine to blindly
call "/bin/sh attachment" when you selected "view".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: An honest attempt
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:43:12 -0500
After much hearing about how much better Linux was than windows, I tried it.
I installed Corel Linux first, but had trouble with it and didn't like it.
Next, I tried Linux Mandrake 7. In my opinion, out of everything Linux I
have seen, Mandrake is the most straightforward, user friendly, easy Linux
for the "Unix Illiterate Dummy" like myself. I had the easiest installation
I could possibly ask for (it did virtually everything).
My system is a PII 350 with 128Meg Ram, a SB AWE64 card, a Creative DVD
Blaster, Creative Modem blaster. It is not old, nor does it contain odd
hardware (maybe the modem blaster, so I tried removing it when I had
problems). Anyway, I was still not able to get my sound card to work, the
modem only intermittently and I cannot figure out how to do simple things
like change the boot option from automatically loading the X login or the
console login, install and use software (like Star office), etc. It had
really neat games, was really smooth running and was stable. But, being
used to Windows, I don't know how to DO anything else.
Anytime that a less-than-completely-dedicated Linux convert in the making
wants to do anything, what we first need to do is to find someone who is a
completely dedicated Linux person and pester them until they want to punch
us with stupid questions like "Uhh... how do I uhh... what do I do?" and
"Uhh... how do I say Linux?" Then when we have honest questions, we just
get answers like "read the book." The problem is, the books don't answer
those questions in a timely manner.
It all boils down to time. I get tired of Windows crashing and having to
reinstall it! I get more tired of Linux not working correctly unless I
change my xconfigurator settings, my .whatchamacallit file and tweak the
flux capacitor. In windows, it just works... now. I have a wife and
children, so my days of playing with big toys, like Linux are over.
Unless a time effective solution can be found for us, you advocates on
comp.os.linux.advocacy have failed to convert me. But, hey, at least I only
spent $25 to buy a Linux box set (I downloaded Corel for free).
P.S. I am still open to trying Linux if I could just understand how... I am
just more skeptical now.
P.P.S. I am not stupid, nor lazy... don't flame me for that. I am a
physicist who has better things to do than chase lost causes (not that
Windows is not a lost cause... just the better alternative for me here.)
------------------------------
From: "Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Computer Terms.....(was "Re: MS caught breaking web sites")
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:42:05 GMT
personally, i belive that cpu fits better, cause there are so many mpu's in
your box.. that is if you get good hardware. MPU would end up like the term
memory, is it ram, or hdds?, though if you also look at it, cpu can be
refere to the whole damn system as well, but at least you can narrow it down
to the chip or the box as a whole. :-)
Sean
"Nobody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gF3Q4.36$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Back many years ago, Motorola like to called their processors MPU,
> as contrast to CPU. I think people should stick with MPU rather
> than CPU.
>
> MPU - Microprocessor Unit.
>
> David Gillam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chris Hedley wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > My mom still calls the whole case the CPU, I can't convince her that
the
> CPU is
> > > > just the chip.
> > >
> > > The term CPU often refers to the enclosure in which the actual
processor
> > > complex(es) reside; the chip, OTOH, is more properly referred to as a
> > > microprocessor or logic array (depending on the system involved.)
Many
> > > people think otherwise, however, which is what I believe is referred
to
> > > as "small computer thinking." :)
> > >
> > > Chris.
> >
> > Maybe I'm guilty of "small thinking", but.....
>
> ---8<--- snipped.
>
>
------------------------------
From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 01:46:18 +1000
On Fri, 12 May 2000 15:30:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Fri, 12 May 2000 13:29:48 GMT, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:8fg81e$um$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> In 1996, Bill Gates was effectively imposing a "tax", collecting
>>> a substantial portion of revenue from every PC user. The PC
>>> had as much impact on trade and commerce in 1996 as ink and paper
>>> had in 1776. King George taxed ink and paper, and tea. At that
>>> time, ink and paper were essential to commerce, and tea was an
>>> occaision for conducting business.
>>
>>At least Bill Gates was able to impose "tax". How Linux companies
>>are going to "tax"? Should "free" wonderland be "tax" free as well?
>
> If you want to blather on about "American Dreams", you need
> to acknowledge the basic historical fact that Americans
> rather dislike taxes of any kind. So, someone coming up with
> a sustainable 'no-tax' system would be really quite admired
> by the 'leave us alone so we can rape the peasants' Big
> Business pseudo-federalist types.
There are sustainable no tax systems, It's called "Hunter gatherer".
It went out of fashion 5000 years ago to a system called civilisation.
>>Linux companies are still in painful search of "sound business model".
>>Red Hat had switched from "software" company to "service" company,
>>and now it's switching from "service" company to "venture investment"
>>business. What's next? Wal-Mart? KFC? .....
>
> So? The whole point of Linux has always been that it doesn't
> need to be a business at all in order to be sustainable.
Always been ??
Linux is only 10 years old and only came out of the geek closet three
years ago.
I have T shirts older then that.
Sam.
------------------------------
From: "Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:54:19 -0500
About the posting:
>Amen, brother.
>
>But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
>consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
about fast food, and disposable diapers. Even the piss-poor product that a
consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
It's like this (maybe sad, but true):
IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 12 May 2000 15:44:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 May 2000 06:43:53 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch said:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 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.
>>
>> No, the shell is that part of the OS that translates /user input/ for
>> the underlying OS. Outlook acts ITSELF as a shell, it shurely doesn't
>> spawn explorer.exe or CMD.exe waiting for the user to input something of
>> his own choice.
>> Fact.
>
>Outlook passes the document to SHShellExecute, which is a function of the
>shell. The shell then decides what to do with the document.
>
>
That is the f***** point! That Outlook, for all practical porpouses
*acts like a shell*. This is a security hole. Period.Period.Period.
>
------------------------------
From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 01:59:57 +1000
On Fri, 12 May 2000 10:54:19 -0500, "Clifford W. Racz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>About the posting:
>
>>Amen, brother.
>>
>>But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
>>consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
>
>
>This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
>about fast food, and disposable diapers. Even the piss-poor product that a
>consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
>is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
>will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
>
>It's like this (maybe sad, but true):
>IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
No you are talking rubbish
Windows is the product most people use by the historical fact that it
was the right product at the right time. (the Mac blew it)
Linux has to be easier and better to displace Windows on the desktop
Which it is not.
Sam
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:05:43 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> Errr, but you can't know what it is until after you open it. If
> you already know, why bother looking at it again? Hence the need
> for a safe way to view it and for that safe way to be the default.
>
Er, what about sending an eMail to the person who sent you the stuff
and asking exactly _what_ the attachement is?
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:05:47 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <66KS4.2874$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Without the
> > timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
>
> Sure. This industry is all about change. Change wiped out DEC, sent
> IBM to its knees, and made a monopoly out of a half-assed desktop
> operating systems vendor.
>
> Its time for a change again.
IBM on its knees? Well, it's a nice thought.
IBM stil makes MS look small.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:08:59 GMT
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Always been ??
>
> Linux is only 10 years old and only came out of the geek closet three
> years ago.
>
> I have T shirts older then that.
>
> Sam.
Besides showing your lack of wardrobe, what the hell does this post
accomplish? So it's only ten years old, how does this disprove the claim that
it always has been....? In otherwords, your post is a strawman.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
