Linux-Advocacy Digest #691, Volume #26 Thu, 25 May 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Christopher Browne)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition (abraxas)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Keith T Williams")
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Keith T Williams")
vote on MS split-up (Gerald Willmann)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 23:55:55 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would say:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Of course if you really want NT-like permissions, then you should go
>> for ACL's. There are patches (for the kernel and file system utils)
>> at http://acl.bestbits.at/ for ACL support.
>
>And if you poke around in NT, there is (used to be) a command called
>something like "setacls". With no options will show the access control
>lists for NT objects in a very *NIX-like way. I actually preferred it
>over the point-and-click approach because I could do mass changes with
>just a few lines in a script. No trivial matter when you have thousands
>of users. Hope MSFT haven't taken that away....
There are several fairly relevant URLs; there seems to be a
multiplicity of ACL projects:
<http://aerobee.informatik.uni-bremen.de/acl_eng.html>
<http://linux-patches.rock-projects.com/v2.2-f/pxacl.html>
<http://acl.bestbits.at/>
<http://www.braysystems.com/linux/trustees.html>
<http://mystery.inp.nsk.su/~art/linux/acl/>
<http://www.compuniverse.com/rsbac/>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/security.html>
"...[Linux's] capacity to talk via any medium except smoke signals."
-- Dr. Greg Wettstein, Roger Maris Cancer Center
------------------------------
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 19:57:55 -0400
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> vindictive:
>>
>> 1. Disposed to seek revenge; revengeful.
>> 2. Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful.
>>
>> -- www.dictionary.com
>>
>> Is this really what you believe a judge's job is to be?
>
>Gosh, yes.......just use the full meaning of a word, not a child's
>definition.
>
>Vindictive \Vin*dic"tive\, a. [For vindicative, confused with L. vindicta
>revenge, punishment, fr. vindicare to
>vindicate. Cf. {Vindicative}.]
>
>1. Disposed to revenge; prompted or characterized by revenge; revengeful.
>
>I am vindictive enough to repel force by force. --Dryden.
>
>2. Punitive. [Obs.]
>
>{Vindictive damages}. (Law) See under {Damage}, n. -- {Vin*dic"tive*ly},
>adv. -- {Vin*dic"tive*ness}, n.
>
>--- From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
>
>and.....
>
>vindictive [vin dktiv ] adjective
>
>1. vengeful: looking for revenge or done through a desire for revenge
>2. spiteful: feeling, showing, or done through a desire to hurt
>somebody
>3. LAW meant to punish: used to describe damages awarded by a court
>that are set higher than the amount necessary to compensate the victim,
>in order to punish the defendant
>
>Encarta World English Dictionary [North American Edition] & (P) 1999-2000
>Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
>Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
>
So the judge's job is purely to punish? What happened to being
impartial and ensuring due process? Like you, Jackson seems to have
forgotten about those two...
Besides, *YOU'RE* forgetting what kind of court case this is. There's
a reason why what Mr. Jackson is deciding on right now is called a
*REMEDY* and not a *PUNISHMENT*. Look into it.
Unfortunately, although he *SHOULD* be deciding on a remedy, this
particular nutjob is obviously on a bloodtrail...
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 00:01:51 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, josco
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>How about bringing back common sense for MS advocacy.
You're too late. The typical Windows user has had several years
worth of MS brainwashing, and the obvious truth, not to mention
little details like historical and technical fact are lost on
them now. They truly believe that what is good for MS is good
for technology and good for them. Historically MS
destroyed competitors who were producing technically superior
products that would have been much better for the computer end
user. The only thing that would be negatively impacted by the
demise of MS is MS itself. Technology would not take any steps
backwards. In fact, it would almost certainly take several steps
forward if we woke up one morning and MS was history. MS has
spent almost all of its time deliberately inhibiting technology
so that they could make that last dime on whatever obsolete
system they last developed. DOS based programming was maintained
for years simply because MS knew it could make a few more dollars
off of it, and it was obsolete and unworthy of the hardware that
was running it since the venerable XT went out of existance. MS
hasn't been innovative at any time in its lengthy history. It
has actively worked against innovation, substituting do-daddery
for high technology and very successfully convincing end users
they were blessed. One the most successful marketing scams of
all time.
Karen
Where do I want to go today?
I want to go where *I* want to go,
Not where MS wants to send me.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 00:02:29 GMT
Today's Thorne digest:
1> Using made-up words again, Tholen (little boy)? How ironic.
1> Don't you know?
2> Don't you know?
2> Incorrect.
2> Balderdash.
3> On what basis do you make this claim?
3> Prove it, if you think you can.
3> Prove it, if you think you can.
3> How ironic, coming from the person who just wrote that.
3> Incorrect.
3> Balderdash.
3> Prove it, if you think you can.
3> How ironic coming from Dave (Master of Pontification) Tholen.
3> Posting for entertainment purposes again, Tholen (little boy)?
3> How typical.
How ironic.
3> Irrelevant.
3> Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearance in Dave Tholen's
3> replies. How typical.
3> Argument by repetition, Tholen? How typical.
How ironic.
4> Balderdash.
4> Incorrect.
4> Balderdash.
4> Incorrect.
4> Balderdash.
4> Unnecessary.
4> Prove it, if you think you can. Meanwhile, where is your
4> logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
Still haven't learned, eh Thorne?
------------------------------
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 20:02:48 -0400
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, too bad they can't actually name any that were made by a company
>> that didn't either shoot itself in the head (Netscape), or happily
>> take Microsoft's money and run (Fox).
>
>And where was it proven Netscape shot itself in the head?
>
>> Besides, their practices aren't being exposed as unfair;
>
>They were exposed as being illegal.
>
>> >People did manage to get their letters typed before MS-windows
>> >ever existed.
>> >
>>
>> Great! After we destroy Microsoft, let's bring back the Pony Express!
>
>How about bringing back common sense for MS advocacy.
>
Oh my *GOD*! The Tholenbot sure has many aliases. Oh well, fool me
once...
*PLONK*
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 17:03:34 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As you know, that's one of the advantages of open source. By sharing
the cost of application development across companies you eliminate the
need for writing the same functions 800 different times in 800 different
ways. Instead of reinventing the wheel, more energy can energy go into
improving the wheel.
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> Right, but the same thousand things that need automating will
> be each be done separately 800 times by different people
> in different places.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.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 20:08:52 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>You're too late. The typical Windows user has had several years
>worth of MS brainwashing, [...]
>
>[content-free Microsoft bashing]
>
No offense, "Karen", but accusations of being brainwashed ring a
little hollow coming from a robot like you. I mean, come on, you
didn't have to recite the anti-MS manifesto word for word, did you?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 00:11:02 GMT
On Thu, 25 May 2000 21:31:58 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> If you run consumer Windows, you ultimately still run DOS.
>
>If I were running DOS when I run a WIN32 app, I would see 16 bit segmented
>pointers. I don't.
>
>If I were running DOS when I run a WIN32 app, I would see HUGE pointers if
>I went beyond 64K bytes. I don't.
>
why? DOS is nothing but a program loader and file manager.
Delete the .sys files (msdos.sys, etc.) and then get back to us how
DOS isn't in use.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Date: 26 May 2000 00:12:27 GMT
ajam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder what people think about RedHat charging $2500 for its RedHat
> 6.2 Enterprise Edition distro. Are they out of their minds? What a rip
> off? That's $2500 for what? Motif? That could be $100 - 200, then
> what else? I cannot believe how selfish these people have become!
Especially seeing now that motif's source is now being released bit
by bit...
> Comments!?
Redhat is apparantly trying to give itself some value before the bottom
drops out of their stock.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Keith T Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 20:17:46 -0400
"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 16:20:18 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
> Williams wrote:
>
> >Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> On Wed, 17 May 2000 07:05:22 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
> >> Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> >Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 15 May 2000 22:06:04 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
> >> >> Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> >> >> On Sun, 14 May 2000 22:54:46 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith
T.
> >> >> >> Williams wrote:
>
> >> >You can claim copyright on anything, by declaring a copyright in the
body of
> >> >work. Until that right is tested in a court of law, or specifically
granted
> >> >by an appropriate legislative body, it may or may not exist.
>
> >> Wrong. The only way it would * not * exist is proof that the material
> >> in question had been copywritten prior to your creation of it, or if
> >> you do not aggressively defend it.
>
> >Proof?
>
> Case and statutory law.
If something is copyrightable by law then yes, but until it declared to be,
then not necessarily.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: 25 May 2000 19:11:46 -0500
In article <w%iX4.76$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: You can invoke ghostview, gv file.ps, (assuming that you have a postscript
>: file)
>: and print from there.
>
>Is there any way to make a Poscript "hello world" file to experiment with?
>I'm sure a Postscript guru could hand-make a "Hello World" file.
I always liked the tiger.ps that comes with ghostscript as a
test file. Use locate to see if it is installed on your
machine. Or use 'man -t' on a small manual page.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Keith T Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 20:31:29 -0400
1. Microsoft office (at least 4.3 and 97) crashes frequently.
2. Microsoft office is full of bugs (at least 4.3 and 97) that's why they
issued (for 97) sr1 and sr2.
3. Microsoft office 97 did not originally write Word 6/95 files, it wrote
RTF files which it labeled as DOC files
4. After much yelling and screaming Microsoft issued a patch for word 97
which allowed it to write real Word 6/95 "DOC" files. They also issued a
patch for Word 6 which allowed it to read Word 97 files.
5. In the Dos based environment (Win 9x) there is little or no memory
protection. If you run several things, at one time or another one of them
is going to write into someone else's memory. This can also happen in the
NT 4.0 NTVDM/WOW environment. That is why you are allowed to start
separate instances of NTVDM/WOW.
Keith.
"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 13:22:50 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
> Colla wrote:
>
> >Roger wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 18 May 2000 03:30:45 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
> >> Colla wrote:
>
> >> >There is just one difficulty: we happen to have uninstalled Office 97
because it was
> >> >too buggy to be used (our secretary had become almost hysteric).
>
> >> Bugs such as ... ?
>
> >Crashing daily.
>
> Not a bug, since it does not generically do so. Must have been
> something in the environment.
>
> >What's shown on the screen doesn't show on print.
>
> For example?
>
> >You save a document and next session you can't open
> >it (either hangs or shows some fancy error dialog).
>
> Which error dialogs would likely have helped in determining * what *
> about the environment, since this is not the behaviour of most Office
> installations.
>
> >Each time Sysadmin intervention, fruitless attempts, recovery
> >with simple text editors, importing text only, etc. etc.
> >Sending a letter to a customer becomes more costly than
> >sending him a Christmas present.
> >
> >For further information please refer to old F-Prot
> >documentation, which explains how anti virus program may
> >hang while scanning Word documents due to MS OLE bugs. They
> >solved the problem just rewriting what they needed. We can't
> >afford that.
>
> Ah, so we had a conflict with the anti-virus program. I don't recall
> McAfee or NAV so corrupting documents or causing such stability
> problems.
>
> >> >Reinstalling the
> >> >previous Office was quite hard because of the usual registry mess of
Microsoft.
>
> >> You * did * uninstall O97 first, right?
>
> >Of course my friend, to discover that a number of registry
> >entries had been left behind, which apparently affected
> >previous Word. Had to use Norton uninstaller, carefully
> >check all proposed deletions (not all were right of course).
> >Go two or three times through: install Office 4.3, test,
> >uninstall, run Norton, until we got rid of all the stuff and
> >Office 4.3 was running. Again more costly than purchasing a
> >different Office program.
>
> And again, not generically needed. Office 4.3 and Office 95 could
> even co-exist and while I have not had a need to have both 4.3 and 97
> active at the same time, the differences in 4.3 and 95 which allowed
> this to work would also apply to 97.
>
> >> >Documents produced with Word 97 where completely unreadable with Word
96.
>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >>
http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/downloadDetails/wd97cnv.htm?s=/downloadCat
alog/dldWord.asp
> >>
> >> Available since September 1998.
>
> >If a conversion program must be used then documents ARE
> >incompatible. We choose NOT to use MS conversion program,
> >being made cautious by experience (see above).
>
> Of course, you could also use the import filter, this util simply
> allows batch conversion which sounded like a better alternative for
> you. And I was not saying they were incompatible -- that's not what
> you claimed. You said "unreadable" which is wrong.
>
> And of course you knew absolutely that StarOffice would do everything
> that you needed with out having tried it out as well...
------------------------------
From: Gerald Willmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: vote on MS split-up
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 17:31:31 -0700
CNN is conducting a poll whether MS should be split up and if yes into how
many parts. Please take a minute to vote for a good cause.
-> http://cnnfn.com/poll/microsoft_breakup.html
thanks, Gerald
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 26 May 2000 00:55:56 GMT
On 23 May 2000 13:07:01 GMT, David T. Blake wrote:
>I was not arguing I should create a library. I was not arguing
>against QTs right to use whatever license they like. I was
>arguing that people should think twice before referring to QT
>licensing as substantially free or "open source".
I find it hard to see how it's not "free" or "open source". I
would definitely agree that it's not the GPL, but the FSF doesn't
have a monopoly on free software ( despite what the name might suggest )
> The right to >fork is absent,
The right to fork is rarely if ever exercised unless the project becomes
unmaintained. Troll have made a sincere effort to address this concern
a long time ago.
> the right not to have your contributions included
>in proprietary works (such as QT Pro) is gone,
(a) I don't see why this is an "advantage". It's a very questionable one.
(b) You have similar issues if you develop LGPL'd software.
(c) It's only true if you are actually working on the QT API itself.
> and QT gets a copy
>of EVERYTHING that even links to their code, even if it is not
>publicly available.
If you're writing free software, the above is a complete non-issue.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 26 May 2000 01:06:28 GMT
On Thu, 25 May 2000 19:57:55 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>Unfortunately, although he *SHOULD* be deciding on a remedy, this
>particular nutjob is obviously on a bloodtrail...
So what kind of remedy would you propose ? I agree that action taken should
not be punitive, but I find it hard to believe that anything less than a
structural remedy will be effective.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
