Linux-Advocacy Digest #13, Volume #27 Sat, 10 Jun 00 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (tinman)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words ("Yannick")
Re: Linux faster than Windows? ("Mike")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("David")
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451706 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (tinman)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Chris Pott)
Re: IE for Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Canada invites Tholen north (Marty)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (mlw)
Re: democracy? ("Mike")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:11:41 -0400
In article <sHx05.32543$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tinman writes:
>
> > [oh well, it's hot out there anyway]
>
> Irrelevant.
Not to my garden.
> >> Tinman writes:
>
> > Typical inaccuracy,
>
> Incorrect.
On the contrary.
> > It's tinman.
>
> Which is how I spelled it to begin with.
Incorrect, you spelled it Tinman, and you did it again above.
> >>> I'm not falling into another tholenesque spiral this week,
>
> >> What alleged "tholenesque spiral"?
>
> > The tholenesque spiral in which we find ourselves at this very moment.
>
> Incorrect; that would be a "tinmanesque" spiral, given that you
> started it.
Incorrect on two counts--I didn't start this thread, and it is clearly in
a tholenesque mode of discourse.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:14:11 GMT
Keith T Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
EVK%4.917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8hnsiv$ldv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [Big snip, cause this is getting too long, look at the previous message]
>
> > > sure that
> > > > I will keep this ownership, and therefore keep control on my
> > project.
> > > > If he wants to deny access to me, then yes, he can take ownership
> > and
> > > remove my
> > > > permissions.
> > > > If I belong to groups that have permission to access the files
> > > nevertheless, then he can
> > > > explicitly
> > > > deny the access for me, overriding granted access.
> > > >
> > > > Yannick.
> > > >
> > > If you are in a place where this can happen, then undoubtably you DO
> > NOT own
> > > the
> > > files, the company you work for owns the files, and should they for
> > some
> > > reason decide
> > > that the sysadmin should change the ownership/access to the files,
> > then he
> > > should be able to.
> > >
> > > Keith. (sysadmin) Williams
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > I'm afraid I don't understand your point here, could you rephrase it,
> > please ?
> >
> The company you work for owns the data, not you.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
Of course. But NT security ownership is closer to the notion of who is responsible
for those files towards the company. And, as I said earlier, the sysadmin can take
control
of the files at any moment, even for files he doesn't own hand has not been granted
direct
access to. Only it requires him to take ownership of the files, maybe for the two
following reasons :
1. Remininding him he's not responsible for those files (he's responsible for the
systems
and
its apps, not for the data processed by them, except in keeping the data safe (backup
policies)).
2. Acknowledging this taking of ownership because he cannot give the ownership back
himself, he has
to ask the former owner to.
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:26:09 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8htn4q$tk1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> Another interesting benchmark would be mail programs. I use Outlook,
> which has a sophisticated indexed system. My mail box has more than
> 5,000 messages, and Outlook can open this mailbox (on a dual Pentium
> 133, my main Windows workstation), in less than 2 seconds. Unix mail -
> which uses nothing but a huge text file, and has to parse through every
> byte (!) to open the mailbox, is very slow. On fast Unix systems, such
> as Sparc's, it takes several _minutes_ to open a mailbox of 200-300
> messages (compared to 2 seconds for a mailbox over 10x bigger on
> Windows). Mailboxes over that length are absolutely unwieldy for Unix,
> but no problem with a sophisticated mailer (security issues
> notwithstanding).
We use the standard CDE mail system that arrives with our Unix systems, from
the top two proprietary (but loosely based on something open!) Unix vendors.
When my mailbox gets up to around 100 messages and 2MB, it takes minutes to
open. This has always baffled me, especially since the majority of that time
is spent "saving" the file that mail has just opened. I can easily write a
simple program that opens a 2MB file, writes the contents to another
location, closes the file, reopens it, reopens the first one, and compares
the two files to each other, byte by byte, then closes both files, all in a
few seconds. In fact, I've done this from the command line using standard
Unix commands in far less time than it takes CDE mail to do the same thing.
I'm not sure why it takes CDE mail takes so long, but I suspect it has much
more to do with CDE mail than with Unix in general. CDE also spends an
inordinate amount of time explaining to me that it is "obtaining a lock" for
the mail file - I'm also baffled why this should take more than a few
microseconds.
In any event, I agree wholeheartedly that a more sophisticated mail file
format (as the default) would be very nice.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:27:23 GMT
Tinman writes:
>>> [oh well, it's hot out there anyway]
>> Irrelevant.
> Not to my garden.
This newsgroup is not your garden.
>>>> Tinman writes:
>>> Typical inaccuracy,
>> Incorrect.
> On the contrary.
Is that the best you can do, merely stating contrariness?
>>> It's tinman.
>> Which is how I spelled it to begin with.
> Incorrect, you spelled it Tinman,
Same spelling.
> and you did it again above.
I'm being consistent in my spelling, which is consistent with your
spelling.
>>>>> I'm not falling into another tholenesque spiral this week,
>>>> What alleged "tholenesque spiral"?
>>> The tholenesque spiral in which we find ourselves at this very moment.
>> Incorrect; that would be a "tinmanesque" spiral, given that you
>> started it.
> Incorrect on two counts--
Balderdash, for reasons given below.
> I didn't start this thread,
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say that you starting this thread.
> and it is clearly in a tholenesque mode of discourse.
An example of pontification.
------------------------------
From: "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:35:36 GMT
"Lawrence DčOliveiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Which is the best system for dealing with filesystem volumes?
>
> a) Drive letters (all versions of Windows OT and NT, including Windows
> 2000).
> Pros: You got to be kidding.
> Cons: They reaassign themselves at the slightest excuse; add a new
> drive, and all bets are off as to which of your existing drive letter
> assignments will stay the same.
> Verdict: Stupid 1970s way of doing things that should be ashamed to be
> still showing itself in the 21st century.
>
> b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
Windows 2000 supports mount points.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451706
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:40:37 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Note how he continues to avoid the
matter of him allegedly reciprocating when I ignored him for over
a year. Yes, he's too embarrassed to admit that he, in fact, did
not reciprocate.
Note how he also avoids the illogic of his claim that he'd have
little reason to "frequent these precincts" if I wasn't here, yet
he doesn't frequent the other "precincts" where I appear.
75> Okay, why does Tholen try an inappropriate analogy again?
You're erroneously presupposing that I tried an inappropriate analogy
both this time and previously, Malloy.
75> Hint: Windows isn't a Chevy Cavalier and Os/2 sure ain't no Lexus!
Obviously you're having trouble comprehending the concept of an
analogy, Malloy. Analogies don't require that the items be identical.
76> Tholen tholes again:
76>
76> What makes you think I'm not, Tholen?
Your posting behavior, Malloy.
76> By the way, your standards for your "digests" has really suffered
76> lately;
Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
76> one wonders why you keep up with the conceit.
What alleged conceit, Malloy?
77> Tholen tholes again and again:
77>
77> Prove it, if you think, Tholen.
Witness the ten postings condensed into one, Malloy.
77> I say you failed, as usual.
But what you say is a lie, as usual.
77> So you claim.
So I demonstrated, by condensing ten of your postings into one, Malloy.
77> And, by the by, none of the questions I raised were answered.
How ironic, coming from the person who didn't answer any of the questions
I raised.
77> It figures.
Yes, it figures that you would be ironic, Malloy.
77> Oh, I could take your quotations "intact" and make them look bad, too,
77> Tholen (as a matter of fact...).
Then why did you remove selected portions, Malloy?
77> But I reiterate: "what he actually does is simply try (and fail) to
77> present my excerpted quotes in as bad a light as possible."
Incorrect, given that your quotations were retained intact. But it's
rather ironic that you should talk about "excerpted" quotes, considering
how you deleted selected portions of what I wrote. For example, when I
pointed out to Brad Wardell that Windows users attack each other, and
that therefore using his reasoning, one could conclude that Windows has
"few users", you chose to leave that part out.
77> Note how he feigns not to understand the issue.
I see that you didn't substantiate your claim, as usual.
77> Hey, waitaminit, maybe he *doesn't* know anything!
Illogical, Malloy.
77> It is not my fault that you did not understand the terms of the
77> offer I made, Tholen;
On the contrary, I understood how unfair your terms were from the
beginning, Malloy. Yes, you wanted me to stop participating in this
newsgroup COMPLETELY in exchange for you not mentioning me. Note how
you didn't offer something equivalent, such as you not participating
in this newsgroup COMPLETELY.
77> the fault is entirely yours.
Balderdash, Malloy. THe fault is entirely yours for suggesting an
unfairness exchange.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:45:16 GMT
On 10 Jun 2000 15:03:07 GMT, James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Lawrence DčOliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
>> Pros: Pretends to make all your volumes look like a single filesystem.
>> Cons: Only *pretends* to make all your volumes look like a single
>> filesystem (all kinds of within-file-system-only things don't work, like
>> hard links). Notoriously error-prone: Copy files to a mount point
>> directory when the volume isn't actually mounted, then mount it,
>> and--where did those files go? Not only are they on the wrong volume,
>> but you can't even access them until you dismount the second volume
>> again!
>> Verdict: Incompletely thought-out idea. How come the Linux folks are so
>> focused on being so faithful to UNIX, when they could be *fixing* some
>> of those long-standing, well-known UNIX problems?
Actually, my favorite commercial Unix doesn't have this problem.
It infact has an automounting system. So, this is yet another
area where the peanut gallery doesn't know what the hell it's
talking about.
>
>Haven't you heard of automount and autofs?
>It automatically mounts it when accessed
>and unmount it when not in used for some time.
>
>
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:47:36 -0400
In article <%oy05.32547$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tinman writes:
>
> >>> [oh well, it's hot out there anyway]
>
> >> Irrelevant.
>
> > Not to my garden.
>
> This newsgroup is not your garden.
Irrelevant, the reference is to my garden, not this newsgroup.
> >>>> Tinman writes:
>
> >>> Typical inaccuracy,
>
> >> Incorrect.
>
> > On the contrary.
>
> Is that the best you can do, merely stating contrariness?
Can you do better?
> >>> It's tinman.
>
> >> Which is how I spelled it to begin with.
>
> > Incorrect, you spelled it Tinman,
>
> Same spelling.
> > and you did it again above.
>
> I'm being consistent in my spelling, which is consistent with your
> spelling.
>
Nope. But if you prefer, you made a capitalization error--regardless, it's
still incorrect. And you keep repeating this error.
> >>>>> I'm not falling into another tholenesque spiral this week,
>
> >>>> What alleged "tholenesque spiral"?
>
> >>> The tholenesque spiral in which we find ourselves at this very moment.
>
> >> Incorrect; that would be a "tinmanesque" spiral, given that you
> >> started it.
>
> > Incorrect on two counts--
>
> Balderdash, for reasons given below.
>
> > I didn't start this thread,
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say that you starting this thread.
Typically incomprehensible, "given that I didn't say that you starting
this thread" makes no sense.
>
> > and it is clearly in a tholenesque mode of discourse.
>
> An example of pontification.
Correct, but uninteresting, since all tholenesque modes of discourse are
examples of pontification.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: Chris Pott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:48:14 -0700
In article <sHx05.32543$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> I'm not falling into another tholenesque spiral this week,
>
> >> What alleged "tholenesque spiral"?
>
> > The tholenesque spiral in which we find ourselves at this very moment.
>
> Incorrect; that would be a "tinmanesque" spiral, given that you
> started it.
Irrelevant, given that the characteristics of said spiral are not
dependent on whom initiated it.
(Yes, I'm jumping into discussions again.)
--
Chris Pott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: IE for Linux
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:47:25 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:20:12 GMT, Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> (There is an IE for Solaris. From what I've heard, it's a pig.)
Plus, it doesn't even take minor OS version changes well or
run on more than one architecture of Solaris.
>
>Yep it's a massive pig. With the same functionality (having ie and oe open)
>as netscape the way I use it everyday, it's about twice the size of netscape.
>Of course, ie5 tends to either hang itself, or my entire window manager so
>that it has to be killed by hand (telnetting/sshing in from another host if it
>hangs the entire wm) after about 15 seconds. My manager tried it on his and
>it crashed CDE. I personally tried it under gnome/wmaker, CDE, and KDE... all
>were hung at least once by IE5.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:49:49 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:08:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>Installation was a breeze, my hardware worked out alright. I had to
>pay for Open Sound System to get my sound card working correctly (due
>to my inexperience, I'm sure) but it was well worth it to me.
>
>However:
>1.) Multimedia just didn't perform for me on Linux as it does on
>windows. By this I mean playback of MPEG compressed video and
>framerates in Quake.
>
>2.) My printer doesn't work! I have a NEC SuperScript 870 (yes, one of
>those not-quite-postscript lasers) but I love it, and can't afford a
>true PS printer..
>
>3.) Drivers for tv tuner card, and mp3 player flash media drive were
>either very difficult to install, faulty, or non-existant.
VidCap? It's either there and relatively simple (although
no-obvious) or not there at all. Although, most consumer
grade vidcap cards all use the same series of supported
chipset.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Tholen north
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:51:22 GMT
Chris Pott wrote:
>
> In article <sHx05.32543$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > >>> I'm not falling into another tholenesque spiral this week,
> >
> > >> What alleged "tholenesque spiral"?
> >
> > > The tholenesque spiral in which we find ourselves at this very moment.
> >
> > Incorrect; that would be a "tinmanesque" spiral, given that you
> > started it.
>
> Irrelevant, given that the characteristics of said spiral are not
> dependent on whom initiated it.
>
> (Yes, I'm jumping into discussions again.)
How typical.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:00:53 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> Checked my calendar just to be sure, and it's not April 1.
>
> British Columbia says it's actively trying to get Microsoft to move its
> HQ to Canada, and is willing give Microsoft a loan for new headquarters
> there (Microsoft would need a *loan*???). Microsoft has apparently not
> offered any comments on the report, except to deny that there have been
> "secret negotiations" with Canadian officials.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_774000/774063.stm
>
It really does not matter if MS goes to Canada. They are a US company.
They would have to dissolve the company to escape prosecution, even
then, as principles in a US company found guilty of crimes, Bill Gates
and Steve Balmer could be held, indefinitely, in contempt of court for
trying to evade justice.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:02:48 GMT
"David Steuber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> [insane lunacy about companies murdering competitors snipped]
>
> Anyway, there is still the appellate process to go through. While all
> that is going on, Microsoft has a chance to organize affairs so that a
> break up won't hurt Bill Gates.
>
> Carnegie kept getting richer after Standard Oil was broken up.
No reason why he shouldn't have. Carnegie had invested in oil, but sold his
interests in the 1860's, before Standard Oil became a force in the industry.
Carnegie's major wealth came from steel. He sold his interest to J.P. Morgan
in 1901 for $480 million, making him the world's richest man.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
