Linux-Advocacy Digest #688, Volume #26 Thu, 25 May 00 17:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: You have never seen Linux like this ("Drestin Black")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (David Steinberg)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Frank McKenney)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Julius Apweiler)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Jeremy Crabtree)
Re: You have never seen Linux like this (Mig Mig)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Nix)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (Salvador Peralta)
UNIX Linux only ISP (Sparc)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel (Paul Kimoto)
Re: Who is Linux hurting the most (dakota)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You have never seen Linux like this
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:16:59 -0400
I love it - guy posts a job opportunity - the very idea of a paid linux
programmer - and he is told to fuck off (politely) and is kill -filed..
yep, the linux community - it's own worse enemy!
"Nicholas Murison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Please fuck off
> --
> Nicholas John Murison
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Don't mess with penguins
> Registered Linux User #153895 http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:19:05 -0400
On Thu, 25 May 2000 19:50:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, I know. The judge agrees with your point of view, so now
>> he's superhuman, infallible.
>
>I'm confident that this would be sincerety rather than sarcasm has the
>judge agreed with your pov . . .
>
Let me guess. You're also confident that the world would have been a
better place had Microsoft never existed, right? Why do Microsoft
bashers all seem to think they can see into alternate realities?
>>
>> I think demonstrating that Jackson pretty much closed his eyes and
>> ears - and literally went to sleep - every time an MS witness got up
>> on the stand should be enough.
>
>Yup, it probably would be. Too bad that that ain't what happened.
>
According to the reporters that were there, it is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 25 May 2000 12:22:13 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark says...
>
>Nevertheless, if 'Linux' insists that there is no agreed interface, it
>sounds to me that more work is being created than necessary. But
>whatever works, I suppose...
you don't get it, do you? Linux is developed by thousands of hackers
all over the world, setting up some bloody contracts and specs
for every interface in the kernel, not only will slow us down,
it will be a nightmere to maintain. Who the hell is going to maintain
all those specs and tests? you want one, you write your own.
Linux does not follow those procedures, becuase linux does not need 'em.
Everything you ever wanted is in the code. you want to find something,
get the source code and see how it works. no bloody specs or test suites
will ever be as good as looking at the source code.
Many people want to change the way linux is written, but it will never
change, that is how it works and that is how it will always work. if
you do not like it, go write your own OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 20:35:32 GMT
>Sean O Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I think demonstrating that Jackson pretty much closed his eyes and
>ears - and literally went to sleep - every time an MS witness got up
>on the stand should be enough.
>IMHO, it's becoming more obvious with each court appearance that His
>Narcolepsy can't see beyond the browser issue in this case. He's still
>pissed off at the overturning of his idiotic injunction - he *STILL*
>wants IE out of Windows. This senile nutcase wants it so badly that it
>took him about twenty seconds yesterday to decide to destroy one of
>the most important companies in the world. After the day's events, how
>can you possibly believe he's still thinking rationally? Every lawyer
>quoted in every one of yesterday's reports expressed shock at
>Jackson's behavior.
Indeed. When all is said and done, I expect that the general consensus
upon this judge's career will be that he fell apart on the bench and
began to render ill-conceived decisions (which I expect will be
overturned later by judges who actually have enough mental stamina to
stay awake during a trial, and no axe to grind as a result of
humiliating embarrassments such as what Jackson suffered in his
previous run-in with MS)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 25 May 2000 20:26:37 GMT
Seán Ó Donnchadha ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: On Thu, 25 May 2000 15:08:19 +0200, Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >You were there?
: The way every minute of the trial was reported, I may as well have
: been.
...
: IMHO, it's becoming more obvious with each court appearance that His
: Narcolepsy can't see beyond the browser issue in this case. He's still
: pissed off at the overturning of his idiotic injunction - he *STILL*
: wants IE out of Windows. This senile nutcase wants it so badly...
Wow! Maybe you WERE there...
...leading the Microsoft defense.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 20:30:59 GMT
On Thu, 25 May 2000 19:18:43 GMT, George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 May 2000 17:29:55 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>And yes, early Unix GUI's were about as functional as twm xclock and n*xterm's
>>>to suit user taste.
>>
>> Actually, all the usual Windows95 suspects were there. WIMP is
>> wimp, regardless of what apps you happen to have available.
>
>Consistency, keyboard short cuts for actions, and dnd for more than text are
Consistency isn't necessarily there for Windows either. Also,
for distinctive tasks it's disputable just how much of the
user interface is transferable from application to application.
This brings us back to claims of 'consistency' again. Win32
doesn't enforce anything. Individual developers chose to obey
this year's guidelines much like Mac programmers need to chose
to play nice with it's cooperative multitasking.
>two lacks off the top of my head.
>
>>>Office 95 in 16Mb 486 - I wouldn't load Navigator in twm on that and expect
>>
>> '95 in 16M? Puleeeze.
>
>Go back to 95 - read the system specs for the time - 16Mb was uneeded luxury...
...and it blew chunks, just like Windows 3.x blew chunks on 4M and
8M. The fact that it was the common configuration only makes Microsoft
look MORE incompetent as engineers.
>
>> Just who do you think you're trying to kid? Many of us are ex-windows,
>> ex-dos, ex-Win9x users. We simply know better than your feeble attempts
>> at lying straight to our faces.
>
>I see your an exuser - some of us still use 95 era machines and software, and
>don't let the clouds of memory interfere with the day to day realities of the
>systems in front of us.
>
>> We've experienced the truth for ourselves firsthand.
>
>And so have Windows users on those machines. And so have I. If you doubt 95
>versions of Windows and Office can run in 16Mb, go learn. Office 97 or Windows
>98, hell no, but Office/Win 95, yes.
I didn't dispute that they would run, just that they would run
efficiently.
>
>> That's why we ended up Linux users to begin with
>
>So you could run inferior Office applications? Of the many resons for switching
Faster vs. 'better'?
>to Linux, in 1995 that was not one of them.
Not all of us were 'married' to msoffice in '95. Also, much of what
many end users use that sort of bloatware for is just as achievable
on a 512K ST or Mac running some relic from the mid 80's.
Usage of msword is driven more by the need to 'be compatible' than
with any particular quality of msword (used or not).
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:32:35 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) wrote:
>:
>: IMHO, it's becoming more obvious with each court appearance that His
>: Narcolepsy can't see beyond the browser issue in this case. He's still
>: pissed off at the overturning of his idiotic injunction - he *STILL*
>: wants IE out of Windows. This senile nutcase wants it so badly...
>
>Wow! Maybe you WERE there...
>
>...leading the Microsoft defense.
>
Oh, of course! My comments are all part of the astroturf campaign,
right?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank McKenney)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 25 May 2000 20:34:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Frank McKenney wrote:
>>
>> Rodney "Mythical Man-Month" Brooks
>
>Fred.
...Nevermind!
(Sorry, Fred (;-))
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 17:29:03 +0200
From: Julius Apweiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> If I would add to my ~/.mailcap, the following line:
> >> application/x-sh;/bin/sh %s
> >> it would also "auto-execute" shell scripts. The difference is that this
> >> is highly uncommon for Unux MUAs and highly common for Windows MUAs.
> >
> >This latter example is more accurate to Outlook's behaviour.
>
> Yes, but you will have a hard time finding such a line in any of my
> mailcap files.
> Also, Outlook seems to disregard mime-types and only uses the filename
> extension when handling mail attachments. I recall a situation where a
> colleague of mine sent an Outlook user a plain text attachment with the
> name "network.figure" and Outlook barfed that it could not find the
> correct application for it. When resent with the name "network.txt" it
> could. But by now I do understand why this happens. Outlook is not a
> Mail User Agent, Outlook is a shell. It was ShellExecute() that barfed
> on the name "network.figure".
>
> >It's still a far cry from "auto-executing" though.
>
> Still nitpicking on the word "auto"? As I explained many times over I
> use this word because Outlook bypasses the normal shell program to
> execute email content.
>
> >> If I hit enter on a shell script or ELF binary in Mutt or click on it in
> >> Netscape, it will not execute. If I hit enter on a jpg image in Mutt it
> >> will use Imagemagick to display it. If I hit enter on an AVI file in
> >> Mutt it will use xanim to display the move. If I hit enter on an mp3
> >> file in Mutt it will play it via mpg123. Do you finally see the
> >> difference between open and execute?
> >
> >I already know the difference.
>
> Then tell me, what /should/ happen when I "open" an email attachment
> that contains a Visual Basic Script?
IMO, it should be run in a safe sandbox environment where it can't do
any harm, just in case it contains a pretty animation or whatever...
(that's what VBS was originally made for, isn't it?)
====================
Julius Dominik Apweiler
----
Owner of Julius' Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/ ,
----
Inventor of the Creatures Christmas Calendar:
http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/calendar
----
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
ICQ: 21129422 , no authorization required.
----
Sent from SuSE Linux 6.3
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and
Gates?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 25 May 2000 15:35:30 -0500
In article <8gjuh5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark says...
>
>>
>>Nevertheless, if 'Linux' insists that there is no agreed interface, it
>>sounds to me that more work is being created than necessary. But
>>whatever works, I suppose...
>
>you don't get it, do you? Linux is developed by thousands of hackers
>all over the world, setting up some bloody contracts and specs
>for every interface in the kernel, not only will slow us down,
>it will be a nightmere to maintain.
That is pretty much the definition of an interface. And it is
not having stable interfaces that makes something a nightmare
to maintain.
>Linux does not follow those procedures, becuase linux does not need 'em.
You don't need them as long as it is a one-man-show. But even a
brilliant man has limits.
>Everything you ever wanted is in the code. you want to find something,
>get the source code and see how it works. no bloody specs or test suites
>will ever be as good as looking at the source code.
Without stable interfaces, no two people can work on different
parts at the same time. You also can't test both sides of
the interface separately to isolate problems.
>Many people want to change the way linux is written, but it will never
>change, that is how it works and that is how it will always work. if
>you do not like it, go write your own OS.
Fortunately it doesn't have to be that drastic because there already
are alternatives that are pretty much compatible at the application
level. So, there is no great risk involved in waiting to see
how far this approach can go.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: 25 May 2000 20:41:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
[SNIP]
>Last time I had mysterious hardware related problems (1984 or so) it was
>due to grounding problems in the motherboard.
A few questions...
1) How did you get Win95 11 years before it was released?
2) How did you get Win95 to run on what would have to be am 8088?
3) Where did you get the magical powers that enabled you to do the first
two things?
--
"The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
-- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You have never seen Linux like this
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:48:30 +0200
Drestin Black wrote:
> I love it - guy posts a job opportunity - the very idea of a paid linux
> programmer - and he is told to fuck off (politely) and is kill -filed..
>
>
> yep, the linux community - it's own worse enemy!
Hmmm.. so a stupid troll shouldnt fuck off??
Youre such a "natural born looser" * Hint hint hint to fuck off*
------------------------------
From: Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk>
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
Date: 25 May 2000 21:46:51 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
> Given the non-package specific dependency checking tools already in
> Linux, one would think that you could build a dependency database
> quite independent of rpm or deb.
You can. It's called `the filesystem'.
(GNU stow, opt-depot, STORE and similar programs automate this process.)
--
`Q: Why did they deprecate a.out support in linux?
A: Because a nasty coff is bad for your elf.' --- James Simmons
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:55:11 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...or for automating things that need automating...
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >We geeks are in demand. According to the L.A. Times, there will be
> >nearly 800,000 new jobs created for application developers and system
> >administrators in the United States this year. There will be fewer than
> >400,000 applicants for those positions.
>
> Keep in mind that many/most of these positions are configuring
> and troubleshooting things that should be fully automatic.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:57:22 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
abraxas wrote:
> The original market consisted of linus torvalds in a dormroom at
> University. Your response suggests that you really havent been
> using linux all that long, or if you have, you dont fully understand
> its nature.
...lol...
I've been using linux in commercial and non-commercial environments
since 1996. Whether or not you believe that I "fully understand it"
(whatever that means), is irrelevent. I have sent contributions to the
perl faq, code contributions to the perl journal, and volunteer my time
to help install linux on systems for new users once a month at lula or
laxlug. I may not "fully understand" linux, but I have used linux,
sendmail, dns, apache, and other gnu tools to help my employer build a
$10 million per annum web-based enterprise which has increased a 35
year-old company's total revenue stream by 40% in less than 2 years.
But my familiarity with linux and how I use it is not at issue here.
Neither are your personal attacks. Your ignorance of what does and does
not constitute a market is the issue at hand. The fact of the matter is
that the market for linux predated the creation of the product itself
which is one of the reasons that linux built it (he built it because he
was PART of the market for the product), and why it was embraced so
quickly and vigorously by the developers who comprised the initial
marketspace for a unix-like os that runs on cheap pc architectures. The
fact that many of the people in that marketspace have leveraged it to
create and develop new markets merely underscores my point.
Linux exists in its present form because it has been embraced by several
markets. It does not exist in spite of them.
> Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That you would say something like that suggests that you don't really
> > understand what a market is. The original marketplace consisted of
> > people who wanted a betterThanMinix, unix-like OS for cheap pc
> > platforms.
>
>
> -----yttrx
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sparc)
Subject: UNIX Linux only ISP
Date: 25 May 2000 20:55:24 GMT
Rebel Net is the UK's first UNIX and Linux only
ISP.
No windoze users allowed to connect to us, we have
designed a service with UNIX an Linux only in mind.
We hope you will be interested, join the rebellion!
http://www.rebel-net.co.uk/
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:59:01 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
abraxas wrote:
> The original market consisted of linus torvalds in a dormroom at
> University. Your response suggests that you really havent been
> using linux all that long, or if you have, you dont fully understand
> its nature.
...lol...
I've been using linux in commercial and non-commercial environments
since 1996. Whether or not you believe that I "fully understand it"
(whatever that means), is irrelevent. I have sent contributions to the
perl faq, code contributions to the perl journal, and volunteer my time
to help install linux on systems for new users once a month at lula or
laxlug. I may not "fully understand" linux, but I have used linux,
sendmail, dns, apache, and other gnu tools to help my employer build a
$10 million per annum web-based enterprise which has increased a 35
year-old company's total revenue stream by 40% in less than 2 years.
But my familiarity with linux and how I use it is not at issue here.
Neither are your personal attacks. Your ignorance of what does and does
not constitute a market is the issue at hand. The fact of the matter is
that the market for linux predated the creation of the product itself
which is one of the reasons that linus built it (he built it because he
was PART of the market for the product), and why it was embraced so
quickly and vigorously by the developers who comprised the initial
marketspace for a unix-like os that runs on cheap pc architectures. The
fact that many of the people in that marketspace have leveraged it to
create and develop new markets merely underscores my point.
Linux exists in its present form because it has been embraced by several
markets. It does not exist in spite of them.
> Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That you would say something like that suggests that you don't really
> > understand what a market is. The original marketplace consisted of
> > people who wanted a betterThanMinix, unix-like OS for cheap pc
> > platforms.
>
>
> -----yttrx
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel
Date: 25 May 2000 16:59:27 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8gis6a$shp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Martin wrote:
> Pros for Solaris :
>
> It is pretty much the "industry standard" for Unix.
(_Commercial_ unix!)
> You will see Solaris fans argue that it is more reliable than Linux,
> to which the Linux advocates will retort that their boxes have run
> for the last twelve months without a crash or reboot. I have to say
> that I have never seen either fail, but to put that in context, I
> have seen Solaris run under enormous loads on massive servers without
> blinking. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of large Sun servers
> round the world, demonstrably turning in high levels of reliability
> under extreme load
But most of them are running on Sparcs, with Sun's own (very fine)
hardware. Are there examples for x86 Solaris?
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who is Linux hurting the most
From: dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:03:10 -0700
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>didn't you know? they all work for free and give away
>everything they write
>for your company to everyone else in the world cause they
>steal^H^H^H^H^Hborrow code from other open sores(tm) projects
>to create
>theirs anyway.
If someone wants to work for free and give away source code
that's their business. When source code is written from scratch
it is not borrowed or stolen. I believe you are mistaking the
Open Source community with Meglasoft. You and simon777 need to
run back to daddy bill where you belong.
>
>Are there any paid linux programmers? besides, I didn't know
>there was a
>language called "linux" - I thought it was a kernel.
Its an Operating system.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
