Linux-Advocacy Digest #562, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Mongoose)
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Tim Kelley)
Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux (Mig Mig)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this.... ("Tim R.")
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: An honest attempt
Re: Desktop use, office apps (R. Christopher Harshman)
Re: Linux lacks ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Woofbert)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:12:08 GMT
On 17 May 2000 18:32:33 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> ...not only was it fixed, but it was fixed before Linux (or even
>> a viable version of Windows) was even born and doesn't seem to have
>> re-occured. I am quite certain this shill would be more than
>> willing to point out a more recent occurence if he were aware of
>> one.
>
>Ah insults. Calling me a "shill" really makes me pay attention to the
That's more a description than it is an insult. You can choose
to take it any way you like.
>things you have to say. Can you be polite and make your point without
>insults?
>
>> He has a personal agenda to make Unix in general look bad. That
>> he's having such a hard time of it is a good sign.
>
>In other posts I've pointed out some problems I've seen in Linux, X, KDE
>etc. I'm not having a hard time at all. The fact that you sink to insults
So? That doesn't have any bearing on this instance. It rather
bolsters my point actually.
[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: Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:16:13 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 16:52:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (eyez) wrote:
>>4. A GUI interface to the most common configuration files.
>>
>>In order to beat Windows, client-side, we need:
>>
>>1. A GUI interface to *all* configuration files;
>
>Ugh. that's why i LEFT windows.
>
>maybe the whole world SHOULDN'T run linux. It's not a system that's made to
>be like windows.
A GUI would be good for configuring the system and stuff, as long as
the config files could still be edited with text editors for other
users.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:13:48 GMT
On 17 May 2000 18:36:16 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in
><8fujj3$2f75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>What point? Everything has bugs. If there is any point, it is that
>>the number of important bugs decreases continuously over a 15 or
>>20 year span as long as the author(s) pay attention to history.
>
>My point is that Linux is not immune from virii.
It's not a very good point then.
The sendmail problem you're fixated on was fixed before Linux
ever came into existence and hasn't reoccured. Unix developers
and sysadmins certainly seem more mindful of history than
Microsoft does.
[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: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:44:01 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1. Within the filesystems of OS's such as dos or windows drive
> > letters break the abstraction of the OS and are artifacts of
> > physical devices present in the system.
>
> Your fallacy is that you are thinking in the Windows paradigm. Drive
> labels have been done successfully in many systems, and Windows is not
> one of them. You have to think about it in other ways than the Windows
> way.
We were talking about windows.
> > This is bad for
> > aesthetic reasons: it doesn't make any sense. With mount points
> > everything is subordinate to "/"; the abstraction of the
> > directory/file metaphor is unbroken. This is not nitpicking, I
> > think the idea of using filesystems according to some label is
> > inherently stupid because there is nothing intrinsic to a file
> > system that makes it the organizing principle of a heirarchy of
> > directories.
>
> But why should removable media be part of the filesystem? If I want to
> mount a tape, or a ZIP drive, why should it be part of the system's
> filesystem?
Why not? If a device has a file system, then it makes more sense
to integrate whatever is on it into the heirarchy that already
exists rather than making a new one.
> a) It calls to attention the fact that it is a separate device. Often
> times you want to insure you are not using a network drive and are
> using a local drive. With mount points, it is not at all obvious what
> physical device a path maps to it without resorting to DF (an
> additional, inefficient step).
to me this is more of a disadvantage. Mount points do not in any
way prohibit this, since I can set up a users desktop with a
"network" icon that opens up a filesystem on the network. Then
they know.
> > Try explaining what "drive c" and "drive d" are to someone who
> > knows nothing of computers and you will see how stupid it is.
>
> And this is less intuitive than /mnt because ...?
Well, in general, it is unecessary for a user to think or know
anything about "partitions" or "hard disks" or cdroms in unix.
the partitions are set up and mounted wherever they may be.
Therefore "cdrom" is "cdrom" on every KDE desktop in the world, a
rather Nice Thing.
In windows, you have c: d: e: ad infinitum. Nothing is masked
from the user, and they are forced to differentiate between disks
in their computer, storage on the network, removeable drives,
etc. then these things can change, upsetting their delicate
understanding of what is going on.
In unix, the user does not even need to know what a disk is, let
alone what it is called. All they need to know is the structure
within their $HOME and the fact that it is backed up.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:05:26 +0200
Great stuff.
If you used your real name of David Smyth then you would even be famous :-)
Cheers David
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:13:30 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Which brings up an interesting question --- is there *any* currently
>> shipping MS product with a 1.x version number?
>>
>> Or does anyone know anybody who ever productively used a version 1.x
>> MS product in the last ten years?
>Microsoft "Bob?"
I don't think it is still shipping --- and it certainly never was used
by anyone in a *productive* manner ;-)
So, well, I don't think it counts.
Bernie
--
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full
Henry Kissinger
American politician
New York Times Magazine, 1 June 1969
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:13:32 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) writes:
>The have been quite a few threads about the proper action on executable
>content in email, as a result of the ILOVEYOU worm. What we (the *nix
>advocates) have been saying all along is that the Outlook's behaviour
>(launch executable content from the mail client) posed serious security
>risks, as proven by the impact of the ILOVEYOU worm. We also stated that
>this is nothing new, these risks have been warned for since rfc1341.
What *really* strikes me as weird is that allegedly something like
65% of people opened the attachment. I mean, come on --- you start out
with a mail with the title "ILOVEYOU". Not "I love you", not
"I LOVE YOU", but just "ILOVEYOU". Would you *really* expect someone
who might be in love with you to leave out any whitespace? How long
have they been using email?
Then, you look at the mail, and it contains absolutely *nothing* that
personalizes it. You are not being addressed, heck, AFAIK, the whole
thing doesn't even refer to one's gender at any time. And at the end,
it says "please look at this loveletter from me".... Gimme a break!
Now, *that* thing gets 65% of people. And as soon as you "open" the
attachment, it has the run of your computer. So why stop with something
as silly and obvious as that crap? Why not go for the full whammy --- look
through the address book for addresses. Then look through the incoming
mail folder (or archived mail) for the latest mails from these people.
Look through the (archived) outgoing mail folder for mail *to* those
people.
Rip the "Dear Pete", "Distinguished Professor Feynman" or "Hi Jodie" from
the last outgoing mail --- simply copy the first line, in 95% of cases
that's what you are looking for.
Then take the first (or second) paragraph from the last received mail,
quote it, and add "I spent some time thinking about that issue, and I
think you are right. I have put my thoughts into a document, which is
attached to this email. I hope you might find it interesting".
Rip the salutation from the last sent mail (the last non-empty line
before the .signature, if it contains a ',', otherwise the last two
non-empty lines).
Name the attachment "thoughts.doc.vbs" (or exploit the latest ilk of
Word Macro Virus, and make it just "thoughts.doc"), make the subject
appear to be a reply to the last received message (possibly adding
an "(again)" if you find that the last outgoing message on that subject
postdates the last incoming one), and send it off.
*That* I could see spreading around the world. *That*, while still malicious,
is at least somewhat clever. But "ILOVEYOU"? PLEEEASE! You gotta be kidding!
Bernie
P.S.: And one might want to include and maintain a list of one-way hashes
of the email addresses the thing sent itself to on its last 5 hops.
That way, you can at least reduce the chance of hitting the same
individuals over and over again, with messages that, while believable
on their own, are similar enought to be noticeable when viewed in
bulk.
--
The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve
change amid order
Alfred North Whitehead
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:13:33 GMT
John Unekis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Apparently, from the contents of the news story, this backdoor into
>your private information may have been deliberately installed by
>Micr*soft to allow information on your buying habits and tastes to be
>collected and sold to vendors.
I'd say that is a very paranoid interpretation.
The problem is that some parser that is supposed to work out what host
a page is on would correctly identify it for
http://some.thing.or.other?some.request.with.data.com
(i.e. see "some.thing.or.other"), but could be fooled by encoding the '?'
as %ab (don't know right now what the encoding for '?' is), thus thinking
it came from a host in the "data.com" domain, and thus allowed it access
to "data.com" cookies.
Yes, this is a severe security bug. Yes, it shouldn't have been there.
But it's just that --- a bug, a screwup. There is absolutely no reason
to think this was done intentionally.
Bernie
--
Human blunders, however, usually do more to shape history
than human wickedness
A.J.P. Taylor
British historian, 1906-90
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:13:35 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda
>>
>> will usually do the trick quickly and easyly.
>Which is why I run SCSI! :)
OK, so here is the slightly more generic version:
grep "[:space:]/[:space:]" /etc/fstab | (read a b; cat /dev/zero >$a)
Bernie
--
If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens,
how incapable must Man be of learning from experience
George Bernard Shaw
Irish playwright, 1856-1950
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:13:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) writes:
And now for the *real* top ten reasons. Of course, these are going
to be different from person to person, but the following is *my* list.
Feel free to write your own:
10. Doesn't need a local CD-ROM to install
9. NFS-root (i.e. painless diskless workstation setup)
8. Elm and Nn (the mail and newsreaders --- with hacked-in threading and
intelligent autokill in nn)
7. Multi-platform (It's nice to use the same OS on all machines)
6. Virtual Consoles and SVGAText
5. Emacs/gcc/g++/gdb/gmake etc.
4. grep/find/cut/xargs/tr/sed and all the other small tools that are so
powerful when combined in the right way.
3. Stability and security are top priority (i.e. multiuser/memory protection/
fair scheduling, quotas, firewalls, the whole shebang)
2. Network aware throughout (to the point where I often find myself wondering
what physical machine a disk is in, or a keyboard is connected to)
1. Full source available (hey, I *am* a geek, and I *like* being able to see
what happens under the hood, and being able to change it at my discretion)
Bernie
--
Nothing is illegal if one hundred well-place business men decide to
do it
Andrew Young
American Democratic politician, 1932--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 14:22:54 -0500
From: "Tim R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
so why are you telling us instead of the developers so they can fix it?
. wrote:
> Canoscan scanner parallel port attached.
>
> Try running the scanner identification program that Sane uses.
>
> Kills Linux completely...No other terminals to log into. Can't kill X
> server. Completely dead.......Red Switch Time....
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:53:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>So, that brings the score up to about n:1, with n=???.
What's score got to do with it?
About all the numbers show is how popular Windows is, and how Linux is not.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:57:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Run Suse 6.4 or Mandrake 7.0 and leave your computer on all day as I do.
>I never re-boot except for power outages.
>
>With Microsoft you have to re-boot.
I would only Linux doesn't offer me what I want right now. Windows does...
though if Borland manage to release Kylix this year that may change.
Pete
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:59:59 GMT
Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
' I am attempting to start a college project and have two of my
' ideas already being worked on. So I wanted to know what other people
' had for suggestions for linux projects? I was thinking of something
' along the lines of a project that would help promote the use of linux.
' What is something that most people could use? Something that could
' make a good 1 year R&D project?
Linux could really use a good framework for developing multimedia
applications and authoring multimedia content.
This means plugable codecs.
This means support for multimedia hardware.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:13:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) wrote in <8fucab$92l$1
@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>Actually, part of the problem is that Microsoft
>didn't get multitasking right until Windows 2000,
>and even then it's a kludge between threads and
>processes which has been nicknamed "fabrics".
Do you consider NT didn't get multitasking right? I'm not disagreeing with
you, I'm just curious on what you base that statement.
>Microsoft considers it's "components" to
>be library calls (COM objects) that can be
>Linked together by corporations (Primarily
>Microsoft) to create huge monolithic
>applications. For load balancing,
>these calls can be fed to remote systems
>by calling DCOM instead of COM. Essentially,
>your calling a DLL which makes RPC calls
>to the remote library. The application
>programmer is barely aware of the change,
>but the administrators become very aware.
Microsoft are not the only ones building monolithic applications; the last
place I worked had a 10 MByte executable, and that was just the core.
Everything was COM, and there was a DCOM component in the works.
>The fundamental distinction of Microsoft
>platforms is that applications must perform
>a huge portion of the "Operating System"
>functions, either through library calls
>(static, DLL, or DCOM) or through application
>functions. MSMQ is a half-step in the right
>direction, but falls far short of System V
>Interprocess communications, local-domain
>sockets, and pipelines, including named pipes.
>Even simple sockets through localhost tend
>to increase the overhead substantially.
I don't know enough to compare Microsoft Message Queue (I assume that's
what you mean by MSMQ) but doesn't NT have IPC, sockets, pipes and named
pipes?
>Also, the availability of a number of scripting
>languages and incremental compilers or configured
>interpreters can provide very high performance
>with ease of customization.
With perhaps just one snag - the scripts can be a bit difficult to read.
>Because there are 500 million Microsoft based Personal
>Computers and Microsoft still provides minimal backward
>compatibility. The application that ran on Windows 3.1
>has been recompiled and enhanced to run on NT, but still
>opens "C:\a\b\c.d". The installation scripts still require
>specific drives, and the few applications that are "well behaved"
>enough to run under the NT version of MS-DOS emulator still
>require drive names.
And so many applications dump so much junk in \Windows\System it's
unbelievable. There was a recent article in Computing about the DLL Hell -
version control of those DLL's that make up the system, and which so many
applications written in Visual C++ depend on.
>Windows 95/fat 32 still doesn't support real long-names. The
>implementation of long-names is based on an alias file which is
>used to translate long-names to 8.3 filenames. I think NTFS has
>real long-names.
It's transparent enough... mostly, until you try to do something before
Windows starts then you need the "short" name!
>Linux combines the best features of UNIX (streams, processes, fast
>context switching, and X11) with some of the best features of Windows
>(friendly GUI interfaces for applications and administration, helps,
> wizards, and hints). Linux also agreessively went after the
>configurability of the PC in terms of hardware and software. There
>are some peripherals that aren't supported, but more and more
>OEMs and After-market vendors are discovering that Linux support
>sells hardware. Even if users don't use Linux full-time, they
>are insisting on the ability to run Linux at least some of the time.
I must have missed something here - Linux still seemed to have
configuration spread all over the place.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
Date: 17 May 2000 16:14:34 -0400
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Howso exactly? PCI,SCSI or USB autodetection is much the same under
>> any OS that supports any of these buses. In terms of immediate
>> driver availablity, Linux and FreeBSD will nearly always be ahead
>> because of the infrequent release schedules of commercial products.
>> In terms of actual 3rd party support, Win2K will be subject to the
>> problem of 'not being DOS' and NT and WinDOS will still both have
>> driver quality issues.
>>
>> Just ask any NT advocate that likes to use bad hardware to excuse
>> all of NT's percieved instabilities.
>Never heard of ISA?
Isn't that obsolete?
>>>I must have missed these on Linux Mandrake. I tried one of these 'shiny
>>>happy gui' tools and it dropped me into a console prompt with a menu
>>>based configuration. Hardly 'happy shiny gui'.
>> You obviously aren't very motivated to look.
>How would you know that, mind reader are we? I looked in the obvious
>places.
Did you double-click on the big, shiny, golden "Linuxconf" icon on the
KDE desktop? If you did, you would have gotten a happy, shiny, annoyingly-
stupid-just-like-Windows-and-MacOS GUI, not an xterm. To get the xterm
version of Linuxconf, you would have to:
1) Open an xterm
2) type "unset DISPLAY"
3) type "linuxconf"
which is a lot less obvious.
--
Microsoft Windows. Flaky and built to stay that way.
Microsoft Windows. Garbage at your fingertips.
Microsoft Windows. The joke that kills.
------------------------------
From: R. Christopher Harshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:06:05 GMT
I suppose I should have been more clear initially. Our requirements:
* Microsoft Office compatibility, import and export.
* Runs and loads with a reasonable amount of performance across a wide
variety of workstation hardware, from a 32MB 486DX2/66 to a 64MB Celeron
466. (The hardware Linux is supposed to increase the usefulness of.)
My issue is predominantly that machines that performed acceptably well
under Windows 9x with MS Office 97 either do not perform reasonably well
, or are not reasonably MS Office compatible, when running Linux and
currently available office solutions.
Applix 5.0 is fine but not Office compatible (not really; my users won't
hassle with .rtf files). The fact that StarOffice is quick on your
PIII-500 with 128MB of RAM doesn't help the fact that our budget doesn't
allow for such beasts, much as I covet them.
Is there a way to work this, or should I bite the bullet and reload
Win9x on (at least the lower end of) these workstations?
For those who dispute the validity of Office + Windows outperforming
Linux + StarOffice or Linux + Corel WordPerfect Suite 2000, I'll be
happy to upload MPEG video clips showing the relative performance of
each, running on identical hardware. (And unlike Microsoft's trial
tapes, mine won't be doctored. =)
It's not a matter of a few seconds; minutes more like it across the
board, especially on older hardware but noticeable on the newer gear as
well.
Yours,
Chris
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 14:23:18 -0500
Evan DiBiase wrote:
> I was talking about DRI in the XFree4 sense. AFAIK, there is no DRI driver
> for the G400 for XFree4.
Yes, if you are talking about "the" DRI, I think that is still correct. And
XF4 *is* desirable -- I benched 3.9.15 at a 40% speedup for 2D rendering on my
G200, vs XF3.3.3.
But if you just want 3D acceleration on your G400, stick with XF3.3.3 + Utah
GLX for a few more months. Even several months ago, before I had to give up
spending time following the list, they were already in the same ballpark FPS
range that you could get for Quake under Windows. And Carmack seemed to be
convincing everyone that they would keep tuning it up until the XF4 driver saw
light of day, so I suspect it's pretty darn good right now.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:31:22 -0700
In article <8fujr8$2fp2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie
Mikesell) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've done a fair amount of WWW page development. IE is simply more
> >> forgiving with improperly syntaxed HTML than Netscape.
> >
> >That is because MS would look rather stupid if their web-browser
> >couldn't display pages generated with their WYSIWYG web-design tool.
>
> And more to the point, they can make the competitors look bad
> by encouraging people (with slick development tools) to build
> non-standard web pages that don't work with standards-conforming
> browsers.
>
> >Next we'll have people advocating a compiler because it compiles
> >programs with syntax errors.
>
> Or a java development tool that creates something that isn't java.
Microsoft was the original non-comforming languages and tools provider.
Anybody remember that travesty called MS-BASIC that they created for all
the little PCs? I remember learning real BASIC (No, I don't mean Real
Basic, I mean the real thing -- Dartmouth Basic from DEC) ... and then
learning all the string-handling functions all over again for MS-BASIC.
Then came MS-DOS, which changed everything from both CP/M and DCL (the
scripting language for DEC operating systems -- remember that DEC was
the leading manufacturer of minicomputers) ... and when it tried to
include features from Unix, it changed those as well.
Those turkeys just steal ideas left and right, then reimplement then
without really understanding what they're doing, and screwing it up.
If only MS were allowed to create software, then the rest of us wouldn't
know any better, and no one would complain any more.
--
Woofbert
Datadroid, Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation.
(woofbert at infernosoft dot com -- www dot infernosoft dot com)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:41:58 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:06:05 GMT, R. Christopher Harshman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I suppose I should have been more clear initially. Our requirements:
>* Microsoft Office compatibility, import and export.
>* Runs and loads with a reasonable amount of performance across a wide
>variety of workstation hardware, from a 32MB 486DX2/66 to a 64MB Celeron
A current version of Windows isn't going to run very well on a 486
nevermind Windows+MS Office. Whereas a 486 would do quite nicely as
an xterminal.
>466. (The hardware Linux is supposed to increase the usefulness of.)
>
>My issue is predominantly that machines that performed acceptably well
>under Windows 9x with MS Office 97 either do not perform reasonably well
Yeah, sure.
>, or are not reasonably MS Office compatible, when running Linux and
>currently available office solutions.
Any Linux Desktop & Office Suite combo will run reasonably
well on any hardware where you could reasonably say the same
thing about Office 97.
[deletia]
I'm not sure I would characterize Office 97 performance on a P6/200
with 64M as reasonable, nevermind a 486/66 with 32.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
