Linux-Advocacy Digest #768, Volume #26 Tue, 30 May 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com ("Brad")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (rj friedman)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (rj friedman)
Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451692 (EdWIN)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (EdWIN)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Eric J Pearson)
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
("Christopher Smith")
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (EdWIN)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (EdWIN)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (EdWIN)
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
(Alan Baker)
Re: democracy? (Praedor Tempus)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451693 (EdWIN)
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example (Craig Kelley)
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 15:10:35 GMT
"rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 16:37:14 "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> ¯I am not sure you would know what a business user is, RJ.
>
>
> The truth is, Wardell, that you have absolutely nothing to
> base that statement on - yet it is the first thing out of
> your mouth. Typical. Just another in the series of Brad
> Wardell "full-of-shit" debate tactics. Someone has the
> effrontery to oppose you? Well, you'll show him, won't you.
> Let's start off by playing the character assassination card.
> I have to admit you're gettin a bit more subtle from the
> days when anyone who opposed you was a "kook" and a
> "lunatic", though.
This is kind of funny. So OSWars 2000 was a personal attack on you
specifically?
Your own posts are your own worst enemy. I can't speak for how all Mac or
Linux or Windows or Be users react to your posts but I suspect that they see
some OS/2 fanatic barking at the moon.
If you want to pretend that the OS/2 desktop market is somehow "Far from
dead" hey, more power to you. However, OSWars 2000 is written for the
mainstream user and outside of os2.advocacy, OS/2 is considered pretty dead.
I received quite a number of email from users who enjoyed the article but
felt that it was inappropriate for me to cover "a dead OS like OS/2" and not
cover FreeBSD or QNX.
I really don't know how to break this to you, RJ but I don't really care
either way what you think about me or anything else for that matter. In my
opinion, you do OS/2 users a disservice by making them look like extremists.
Not everything or everyone is "out to get you". I thought I was pretty
fair, more than fair, to OS/2 in the article
(http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/oswars2000.html).
For an OS to survive in the long term, new users need to be switching to it.
I just don't see any evidence of that happening. On the other hand, I know
people who are excited and switching to Linux, BeOS, and Windows 2000 as
well as people waiting to move to MacOS X once the Aqua stuff is available
early next year. I am not an advocate for Mac, Linux, Windows, or BeOS, I
simply call them as I see them.
Brad
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> [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] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 30 May 2000 15:23:05 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:18:11 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
¯>»Guess what? Neither Gates nor Ballmer are engineers.
¯>Ballmer is nothing but a soap salesman. He got hired at MS
¯>because he and the brat went to school together.
¯Are you implying that Microsoft has been trying to brainwash us
¯for a decade or so? :-) :-)
Well, they try to soft soap you first. Amazing how many
suckers fall for it.
________________________________________________________
[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] (rj friedman)
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: 30 May 2000 15:26:57 GMT
On Tue, 30 May 2000 12:05:48 "Shock Boy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
¯> I understand that - and realize that there are many people
¯> out there that have to go along with the MS "experience" in
¯> spite of the fact that they are repulsed by it. I was
¯> referring to those individuals who not only aren't repulsed,
¯> but actually proactively support the MS agenda.
¯You mean providing an enviroment that allows a poweruser to rapidly and
¯effectively multitask between a multitude of different documents and
¯applications at the same time?
Sorry Shocky- unlike you, I was referring to the mediocrity
perpetrated on the computing public commonly known as
Windows. Not sure which OS you were referring to, it sounds
like you were talking about OS/2.
________________________________________________________
[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]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 15:15:50 GMT
Unlike you, I CAN back up my claims! From the microsoft web page:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP
Look under duplication process!
MS uses UNIX to insure virus free software!
Very sad. A linvocate having to post from the MICROSOFT site To teach a
self proclaimed NT/w2k expert about how MS manufactures it product.
Time to put up or shut-up, draby dresser, prove your statement that MS
has nothing to do with the w2k product.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8guur9$633$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If you read the article as you have asked US to do, you would find
that
> > Linux care had MANY management problems. Lack of commitment to OSS
was
> > just one of the MANAGEMENT problems and does NOT reflect on Linux as
a
> > whole. The same is true foe MS, which uses Unix in it manufacturing
> > process!
>
> care to document that last part? I know you can't but I'd like to see
you
> wriggle around...
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451692
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:30:27 -0700
In article <bZEX4.15172$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Today's Thorne digest:
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> > How ironic.
>1>
>1> Note: no response
>
>Liar.
Typical invective, laced with irony.
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> > How ironic.
>1>
>1> Note: no response
>
>Liar.
Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim.
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Note: no response
>
>1> Prove it, if you think you can. Are you taking inappropriate
>1> posting lessons again, Tholen (little boy)?
>
>Should have paid more attention to your reading comprehension
than
>your pasting, Thorne.
On what basis do you make this claim?
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:36:52 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeeezus!
Using made-up words again, Mike? How typical.
>I guess the OS/2 groups must be dead
Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim.
> as the Tholen crap
Typical invective.
>has moved over here.
Illogical.
> Do you suppose you Tholen folks could consider
>jumping on the BeOS bandwagon and taking your crap over there?
Are you posting for entertainment purposes again, Mike? How
typical.
>Or....you could all find hobbies.
What hobbies you can find is irrelevant. What you can prove is
relevant.
>
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe Malloy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Today's Tholen digest...and all he can is repeat a few
phrases which he
>> has
>> "popularized" and add a few words here or there. The sum
total of them:
>>
>> [move along, c'mon, move along, there's nothing to see here]
>>
>> Thanks for reading!
>> --
>>
>> "USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no
power on the
>> output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric J Pearson)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 15:38:48 GMT
> For a rationale person it may be sometimes hard to figure
> how far incompetence may go. At the very moment Bill Gates
> was declaring "640 kbytes of memory should be enough for
> everybody" (around 1985), Intel had on its drawing board
> microprocessors with 4 GB of addressable space
While I agree with some of what you're saying, IMO using the numbers in
that way over-dramatizes the facts. It would be equally true to say "At
the very moment Bill Gates thought that a 16-bit processor should be
enough, Intel had 32-bit processors on its drawing board." The size of
the leap was a matter of mathematics (2 to the 16th power vs. 2 to the
32nd), not the magnitude of somebody's short-sightedness or incompetence.
The actual difference in the numbers could be accurately expressed as
"two".
I'm not apologizing for anything Microsoft or Bill Gates has done. I
just feel that the most persuasive arguments are fact-based. Leave the
puffery to MS.
In the end, how many of us have the foresight -- and the resources -- to
actually create software that will handle the hardware that is currently
"on the drawing board"? I know I don't. Apparently Microsoft in 1985
was no different.
-- Eric
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 01:53:17 +1000
"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8gvavr$8bc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8gufnb$533$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Microsoft's main innovation is quite obvious: putting lots of
> >> > computing
> >> > power into the hands of general consumers. Who else, besides,
> >Commodore,
> >> > Apple, IBM, or Atari has even attempted this? The beloved UNIX
> >> > weenies
> >> > at
> >> > Sun? Silicon Graphics (officially renamed to "SGI")? Yeah...
> >> > _right_.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe IBM? HP? Compaq? Dell? Packard Hell?
> >>
> >> Heck, Microsoft never put ANY computer power in the hands of consumers.
> >
> >That's right, computers would be just as useful if you had to flip
> >switches
> >to use them.....
> >
> >
>
> As if Microsoft were responsible for the current state of affairs.
> Please.
I'm sure some other company would be in the position Microsoft was in today
if they "lucked out", but that's entirely irrelevant to who actually *is*.
>
> They lucked into a contract with IBM and bought someone else's work to
> fulfill it.
And ?
> Then they copied the Mac. Then, after they failed to create
> their new technology OS (and after using IBM's money to pay for their
> own research) they hired the guy who did VMS to do them a version of it.
And ?
> Any positive effects that all this has had are purely accidental.
By what definition of "accidental" ?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:56:01 -0700
In article <MvFX4.15177$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Mike writes:
>
>> Joe Malloy wrote:
>
>>> Today's Tholen digest...and all he can is repeat a few
phrases which he
>>> has "popularized" and add a few words here or there. The
sum total of
>>> them:
>>>
>>> [move along, c'mon, move along, there's nothing to see here]
>>>
>>> Thanks for reading!
>
>> Jeeezus! I guess the OS/2 groups must be dead as the Tholen
crap
>> has moved over here.
>
>On the contrary, the OS/2 groups are quite alive.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> The "Tholen crap" has
>not "moved" from there; it's still there.
On what basis do you make this claim?
> Malloy is simply exporting his
>"Tholen crap" to other newsgroups.
Typical invective, laced with irony.
>
>> Do you suppose you Tholen folks could consider jumping on the
BeOS
>> bandwagon and taking your crap over there?
>
>Obviously you don't understand Malloy.
Incorrect.
>> Or....you could all find hobbies.
>
>Malloy already has one.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> It's a rather unusual hobby, but a hobby
>nonetheless.
Typical lack of specificy. Meanwhile, where is your logical
argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:59:19 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Jeeezus! I guess the OS/2 groups must be dead as the Tholen
crap
>> has moved over here. Do you suppose you Tholen folks could
consider
>> jumping on the BeOS bandwagon and taking your crap over there?
>>
>> Or....you could all find hobbies.
>
>I move for the creation of an alt.emulation.tholen.
Posting for entertainment purposes again, ZnU (little boy)? How
typical.
>--
>The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more
expected.
> -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
>
>ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:00:32 -0700
In article <dN8Y4.15486$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Bob Hoye writes [to Eric Bennett]:
>
>> Don't you know? How ironic coming from the most prodigious
Tholen
>> emulator.
>
>What makes you think that Eric Bennett is emulating me at all?
Don't you know?
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:09:11 -0700
In article <8h0nhk$7ef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8gvavr$8bc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8gufnb$533$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards
>> >> II"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Microsoft's main innovation is quite obvious: putting lots of
>> >> > computing
>> >> > power into the hands of general consumers. Who else, besides,
>> >Commodore,
>> >> > Apple, IBM, or Atari has even attempted this? The beloved UNIX
>> >> > weenies
>> >> > at
>> >> > Sun? Silicon Graphics (officially renamed to "SGI")? Yeah...
>> >> > _right_.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Maybe IBM? HP? Compaq? Dell? Packard Hell?
>> >>
>> >> Heck, Microsoft never put ANY computer power in the hands of
>> >> consumers.
>> >
>> >That's right, computers would be just as useful if you had to flip
>> >switches
>> >to use them.....
>> >
>> >
>>
>> As if Microsoft were responsible for the current state of affairs.
>> Please.
>
>I'm sure some other company would be in the position Microsoft was in
>today
>if they "lucked out", but that's entirely irrelevant to who actually *is*.
>
>>
>> They lucked into a contract with IBM and bought someone else's work to
>> fulfill it.
>
>And ?
>
>> Then they copied the Mac. Then, after they failed to create
>> their new technology OS (and after using IBM's money to pay for their
>> own research) they hired the guy who did VMS to do them a version of it.
>
>And ?
>
>> Any positive effects that all this has had are purely accidental.
>
>By what definition of "accidental" ?
By the definition that it took factors totally outside their influence
in order for it to have happened.
In particular, if Gary Kildall had signed IBM's non-disclosure
agreement, then Microsoft would never have been given a second chance to
produce MS-DOS (they'd already said no once) and if the largest and most
powerful computer company in the world hadn't made either one of _two_
crucial blunders in producing the PC, MS would never have been able to
sell their OS on clones.
>
>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:10:43 -0600
Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vilmos Soti wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> If you want to see corruption at work go and work in Thailand.
> >
> >Heh, once I read in the newspaper (US) that the Thai Secretary of
> >Education (or Culture, or something like this) said that corruption is
> >part of the national heritage and encouraged people to practice this.
>
> If doing XYZ is actually the traditional and accepted way of doing things in
> Thailand, who are we to say it's "corrupt" just because it's not the way we
> expect it to be done in the US (or wherever)? Driving down the left-hand
> side of the highway is illegal, stupid, and probably deadly *in some
> countires*. In other countries it's not. And then there's Italy...
Err...I would wager that the common Thai would prefer no corruption,
period.
Corrupt practices always favor the rich over the common. It provides
political
favors and bad policy simply as a result of payola. It leads to
dangerous
environmental policies (read that to be NO environmental policies), poor
economic policies - and it will, in the longer run, exclude the corrupt
country from the greater economic community. Shady dealmaking,
particularly
when it is found out, does not make for good public policy nor good
public
opinion (which is everything when it comes to a company seeking
customers).
No matter how you slice it, corruption is bad. It is bad for the people
as
a whole, bad for the environment, bad for political stability.
praedor
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451693
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:14:18 -0700
In article <Hr9Y4.15490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tholen Tholed:
>Today's Thorne digest:
>
>1> Now this sets up a beautiful example of hypocrisy and
inconsistency by
>1> Dave Tholen.
>
>On the contrary, it does no such thing, Thorne.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>Rather, it sets up a
>beautiful example of your reading comprehension problem.
Typical pontification.
>1> In the above he asks for the information to be identified
>1> in_the_posting_where_the_accusation_was_levied.
>
>Of course. It makes no sense to ask for the information to be
>identified in a posting in which it won't necessarily occur.
Illogical.
>1> Wait until you see what comes below.
>
>Just another example of your reading comprehension problem,
Thorne.
Typical invective, laced with irony.
>1> [snip]
>
>Perhaps you should read rather than snip, Thorne.
Classic invective. How ironic coming from Dave "Master of
Snipping" Tholen.
>1> Bingo! Here it is.
>
>Yep, that was the example of your reading comprehension problem.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>1> Tholen feels no need to address anything where it appears,
>
>Incorrect, Thorne.
Balderdash.
> In reality, I addressed something where it
>appeared,
Incorrect.
> namely how I was able to recognize something that I wrote,
>despite it being attributed to someone else.
Illogical.
>1> or even to provide attribution,
>
>Incorrect, Thorne.
Balderdash.
>I provided the correct attribution.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> It was Jim
>Stuyck who did not.
Incorrect.
> I commented on that fact,
Unnecessary.
>but Malloy claimed
>that the attribution must have been correct because I responded
to
>it.
Irrelevant.
> Of course, that illogically assumes that the only way one can
>recognize their text is by the attribution.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>1> yet he *demands* it from others.
>
>Incorrect, Thorne.
Balderdash.
> I did not demand attribution from others.
Incorrect.
> In
>reality, I asked Malloy to substantiate a claim that he made.
Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearance in Dave Tholen's
replies.
> That
>claim had nothing to do with attribution.
Incorrect.
>1> Incredible!
>
>Yes, your reading comprehension problem is rather incredible,
>Thorne.
Typical invective, laced with irony. Are you taking
inappropriate posting lessons again, Tholen (little boy)? How
typical.
>1> [snip]
>
>Perhaps you should read rather than snip, Thorne.
On what basis do you make this claim?
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 30 May 2000 10:20:35 -0600
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:VwGY4.514$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > What do you expect?
> > >
> > > With Linux:
> > >
> > > "You get what you don't pay for"
> >
> > Haha! What a dumbass! Who's talking about Linux?
>
> well, only the linux version was affect, not the windows version...
Yeah, but most people use the Windows version in conjunction with
Outlook...
I'll say it for everyone else: Open Source isn't perfect.
There. Are you happy now? Will you please go away?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:25:31 GMT
The Windows version seems to not be affected.
On Tue, 30 May 2000 03:25:41 GMT, "none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> What do you expect?
>>
>> With Linux:
>>
>> "You get what you don't pay for"
>>
>
>Haha! What a dumbass! Who's talking about Linux?
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:31:49 GMT
lop@l writes:
>In article <8gub3a$qur$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>says...
>
>>As a result, a *lot* more coding gets done. Sometimes the resulting code
>>is crap --- so what, scrap it, redo it from scratch, with what you have
>>learned from the mistakes you made the first time around. You can do
>>that four times, and *still* get the good version before the person who
>>does 15/85.
>One can eliminate many unneccessary code iterations by spending more
>time in the analysis and design stage.
Of course. However, if you want to get a job done in as short a time as
possible, you have to consider the *total* of design time plus coding
time.
Design takes time. As the poster a few posts up in the thread stated,
in a well-done commercial project, only 15% of the time is actually spent
coding, the rest is spent on miscallaneous other tasks, including design.
Ask yourself --- how many coding iterations does it take to make up for
the lack of time spent on design? And can those iterations be done in
less time than the design would have taken?
And even if the answer to that last question is "No" --- you still
have to ask yourself whether the implementation you arrive at through
several coding iterations doesn't have other advantages over the one
you arrive at by a single coding phase that follows a lengthy design
phase.
>Imagine a civil engineer building a bridge, then finding out near the
>end that one end is shorter than the other, then blowing it, and starting
>again.
There are two flaws in the analogy:
a) The supposed mistake is *stupid*. People programming for linux don't
usually make *stupid* mistakes in their designs. They might make
numerous *subtle* mistakes, but most of them (and especially most
of the people working on the kernel) have been programming for long
enough not to do something *stupid*. A better analogy in this regard would
be what happened to the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne --- they built it,
but some stresses cropped up, the thing started warping, and while they
were trying to patch that over, it completely fell apart.
b) Bridges cost *money*, not just time. Building bridges also has all sorts
of side effects --- from traffic diversions to environmental impact.
Tearing down a botched-up bridge costs money and time, and also has
all sorts of side effects.
Going through code iterations just takes time, nothing else.
Bernie
--
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors
Plato
Greek philosopher, 429-347 BC
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
