Linux-Advocacy Digest #908, Volume #27 Mon, 24 Jul 00 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!! (Arthur Frain)
Re: Some REAL fun before weekend ("Anders Gulden Olstad")
Re: Vacuum, void, null... .NET ("John C. Randolph")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! ("John C. Randolph")
Re: Why use Linux? (Arthur Frain)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Spud")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Spud")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Spud")
Re: Windows98 ("Spud")
Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!! (Arthur Frain)
Re: Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance? ("Stuart Fox")
Any Corel O2K Users? (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!! ("Spud")
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (Lewcifer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!!
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:24:55 -0700
Spud wrote:
> > Have you bought a new PC recently? There is no
> > way to screw up the initial setup, because the
> > only way to do the initial setup is to load a
> > disk image from CD.
> Yes, I ahve, and yes, there is - if the people who made that CD did so
> in a sloppy manner, which I already described the details of. You did
> actually read my post, right? No, I guess not.
Sure I read your post. You're suggesting HP loads
the disk image with a sloppy setup. I mentioned
twice that I verified the setup when I set up
identity, and the networking setup was initially
correct - did you read my post?
There isn't much to verify here - it needs to
recognize the card, have a protocol for it,
have logon and filesharing setup. Not two cards
(which Windows thought would be useful) or no
protocol (which PnP thought was a good setup).
> > Why is it always necessary
> > to blame the user or other third parties for
> > things which are obviously MS's fault?
> Such as? Installing umpteen drivers for devices which don't even
> exist on the machine?
Doesn't apply in this case - you're attempting
to blame somebody other than MS for doing faulty
setup, when in this case everything was set up
correctly. Why do you find it so hard to believe
that a properly setup Win98SE system can fail
in significant ways?
Windows insisted both in Control Panel | Network
and the Device Manager that I had two identical
NICs setup at identical addresses/interrupts.
Even if Windows didn't do this (which it did)
there should be no way a user could do this.
And in fact there isn't - you can't maually
install PnP cards (or so Windows told me).
So tell me, how would installing umpteen
drivers for devices which don't exist be
possible if Windows doesn't even allow it
anymore? Making this up as you go along?
This is supposed to be easy to use, right?
> MS didn't do that - but I've seen more than one
> vendor do that. Who do we blame here, MS for configuring your box?
> No, I don't think so.
I agree - it couldn't have been MS that configured
the box - the config was correct.
> > The original config was correct when the crash
>
> Sheer assertion, or did you actually examine it?
Yep. Did you read my post?
> > It turns out that now the mess is made by Win98.
> > Every time the machine is rebooted from power off,
> > Win98SE installs a second NIC.
> Funny; we don't have that problem. Apparently it's not a Win98SE
> issue, but an issue with your configuration; gee, I *did* say that was
> probably the case, didn't I?
Nope - the config was initially correct and
ran a few days without problems. Than it ran
for several days with problems. I checked
again after I posted - my daughter was afraid
to power down again, but we had a 20 second
outage last night and the machine rebooted
just fine. So now it works. Maybe next week
or next month it won't. That's typically been
my experience with Win9x. The only other
Win98 machine I have also double-installs
the NIC, but it works just fine that way
(and it doesn't do anything important)
so I've left it that way. And again, there
apparently is no way Windows will allow me
to manually install that PnP device either.
Nobody but Windows can screw this up.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Anders Gulden Olstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some REAL fun before weekend
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:57:48 +0200
Krondor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> from the "whitepaper"
> http://www.microsoft.com/net/whitepaper.asp
> About .NET
> "Ten years ago Microsoft set out a vision of a world with Information at
> Your Fingertips. "
> I REALLY love this site.
Me too... ;-)
[andersgo@jeeves andersgo]$ ping www.microsoft.com
PING microsoft.com (207.46.131.137) from 172.16.128.4 : 56(84) bytes of data.
>From sl-bb11-pen-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.5.2): Destination Host Unreachable
>From sl-bb11-pen-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.5.2): Destination Host Unreachable
>From sl-bb11-pen-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.5.2): Destination Host Unreachable
>From sl-bb11-pen-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.5.2): Destination Host Unreachable
>From sl-bb11-pen-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.5.2): Destination Host Unreachable
--- microsoft.com ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, +5 errors, 100% packet loss
--
Sing While You May!
------------------------------
From: "John C. Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Vacuum, void, null... .NET
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:01:25 -0700
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> Some comments on the nothingness that is Microsoft .NET white paper:
A bit of IBM history: Try to find anything you can on "OfficeVision."
Nine HUNDRED MILLION spent, nothing shipped.
I guess it goes with the territory of owning the mediocrity franchise.
-jcr
------------------------------
From: "John C. Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:04:43 -0700
Boris wrote:
>
> > The only thing we have here, is some whiney weenie pissing and moaning
> > about the ramblings of some marketing droids at Microsoft.
> Actually .NET is about new middleware: SOAP - which works both on local LAN and
>across
> Internet. It's kind of Component Object Model where components can talk to each other
> across Internet (smthg current DCOM can't do). COM/DCOM will go away: default
>protocol
> will be SOAP (which involves exchanging XML over HTTP).
See "Portable Distributed Objects" (PDO).
NeXT did this six years ago, and it worked. I expect microsquish to
fuck this up as badly as they fucked up their GUI.
-jcr
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:52:18 -0700
Spud wrote:
> [snips]
> "Arthur Frain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Spud wrote:
> > > So what's your point?
> > The point is that you're arguing that Win98 is easy
> > to use at the same time you're arguing that it has
> > bugs that make it extremely difficult to use.
> Not at all. I do wish some of you folks would actually think about
> what you're saying, at least for a second or two before saying it.
> Let's recap:
> Does Win98 have bugs? Yes.
Obviously.
> Does Linux have bugs? Yes.
Agreed.
> Does this bear any necessary relation to usability? No.
Wrong - I've pointed out a case where it does.
> Does the fact that 98 has bugs make Linux more usable? No.
Just makes Linux preferable if it can perform
the same tasks without bugs, IMHO, which is
all that matters on my systems.
> So, Win98 can't be usable, because it has bugs.
Strawman, at least in my case, because I've never
said that. My only point is that Win98SE (in this
case) and Win9x (in general) is difficult or
unpleasant to use - not the same as unusable
(except of course when it truly is unusable, as
in the networking problems I've had). My daughter
wants to run Win9x even though she has the option
of running Linux and finds it as easy to use as
Windows for some tasks. I don't belittle her
(or anyone) for making that choice. But neither
she, nor most anyone I know who runs Win9x, thinks
it a good product. From the people I know, you're
in the minority (and even you admit Win9x isn't
usable for heavier duty applications).
In my daughter's case, Linux isn't "usable" for
her because it doesn't run "the Sims" or whatever
game it was she bought the other day, it doesn't
run Photoshop (which she likes better than the
Gimp), it doesn't run some of the photo software
that came with her digital camera. That still
doesn't mean she thinks Win98 is a good OS,
and I don't think it is either. And Win98 isn't
"usable" when she can't make the network
connections necessary to what she wants to do.
> Uh huh. Brilliant conclusion. Truly stupendous logic. Have a
> banana.
I do like bananas - I'll have one later. Thank you.
> > My daughter's brand new HP Win98SE based computer
> > cannot handle a simple thing like finding the
> > Network Interface Card.
> I'm sure it can... if you pay the slightest attention to what I've
> said regarding this issue elsewhere. I've also pointed out this is,
> in all probability, an HP-caused issue. Feel free to ignore the
> advice given, and to blame MS for someone else's failings, but that
> doesn't support your point.
I do feel free to ignore you're *apologizing for*
and *evading* MS's failings. I've already pointed out
several times that everything was set up correctly,
and that in fact it should not be possible for
anyone to create the problems Win98 has been causing
me.
I think it's fascinating that you have no idea
what the system is beyond HP and don't know how it
was setup, but you're absolutely certain it was
HP's fault. I'll repeat what I said earlier: if
a major technology company like HP can't even
get Win98 set up correctly, it's hardly honest
to call it easy to use.
> > I don't doubt that any OS has bugs somewhere.
> > That's the same as saying all of us have
> > sexual desires. But we are not all rapists,
> > and most OS bugs are not as glaring,
> > annoying or frequently encountered as the
> > bugs in Windows. I have never encountered
> > a bug in Linux (2.0 or 2.2) that has
> > required even a work around,
> Try Mandrake's latest offering. *Every* time I try to configure the
> sound card, it freezes the machine solid. Oh, yeah, well, no bugs
> there requiring workarounds, eh?
Don't use Mandrake. You probably should switch to
an OS that meets your needs if Mandrake doesn't.
That's why I don't use MS products anymore. If
Windows does what you need, then you should probably
use it, and I see no reason to critcize you for
that. Just like I see no reason to pretend that
Win9x is a quality product - it isn't.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:17:19 -0700
[snips]
"Arthur Frain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Spud wrote:
> If you're referring to the #!/bin/perl as an association
> embedded in the script, for purposes of mail or browsing
> that isn't correct. It's only the OS or shell that know
> what #! means, not mail software.
And apparently has nothing to do with applications associating
anything with anything. Right.
> So you're essentially right that Linux *could* be
> susceptible to VB-like viruses - it's just that
> hardly anybody ever enables that capability.
Right... and OE _could_ be susceptible to such viruses as well... *if*
the user decides "Hey, what's this? A totally unknown file which
might do anything; let's run it." In short, the existence of the
association - regardless of who manages it - is irrelevant.
> > > The problem was the association of Visual Basic scripts with
> > > the Visual Basic interpreter (or are they just executed?).
>
> > What would YOU associate them with, then? Perl? Patently absurd.
> > Associations exist for a reason. Unsafe computing practices don't
> > change that.
>
> Again, since you're setting what are effectively
> associations (actually MIME types) in the browser
> or mail client, there's no harm in setting
> something like a .pl file to "unknown" or
> "text/plain".
No harm, but no utility, either. When I fire up a VBS or perl script,
I expect it to run and do something; that's why it's a script, not a
document.
>You just can't run it from the
> browser or mail agent and potentially infect
> your system.
No, but you can't handily run it from _anything_ at that point... so
why have VBS (or Perl, or...) installed at all?
> You have to save it, set the
> execute bit (and have permissions to do
> that) and then explicitly execute before
> you can infect your system.
Just as with OE, you have to explicitly say "Open attachment" in order
to do anything risky with it; they don't magically fire on their own.
> > > Why were Visual Basic scripts not associated with a text editor?
>
> > Because that would be a *stupid* way to do things.
>
> Only if you don't mind the occasional virus or
> trojan. Is it possible to change the association
> for mail attachments only?
Not that I'm aware of. And personally, I _very_ mych mind trojans. I
avoid that by not running unknown scripts. OE doesn't run them at
all... I have to manually choose to do so; I don't.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:18:48 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Drestin Black in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Oh, so only unix uptime guarentees are intelligent, NT uptime
guaretees are
> >insulting and worthless? [...]
>
> Yes, you pretty much nailed it there.
Ah, yes; the hallmarks of an intelligent, reasoned, informed debater.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:20:27 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Drestin Black in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Now - there it is in black and white. 100% availability for both
hardware
> >and the OS. I'll await your apology.
>
> I'm notoriously bad at following silly, pedantic refutations, so I
have
> to be honest with you. I didn't even read your post; I skimmed it,
and
> found some sort of "oh yeah, well..." followed by an url.
I see. So, despite the fact that he supposedly refuted your points,
and even provided you with the support for his position, you not only
couldn't be bothered to read his post, you also couldn't be bothered
to see whether or not you were being shown to be a complete and total
idiot by defending an indefensible position.
Good bye, Mr. Devlin.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:23:50 -0700
[snips]
> > needed now. I'd hardly pick a Ford because they happened to be
the
> > first ones to adopt air bags (if in fact they were); it's a stupid
> > basis for choosing a vehicle.
>
> Oh, it is revelent because it put the lie to that blanket statement
that is
> so oftern used that "Linux lags behinds Windows"
Fine; take it up with them; it's hardly a position I espouse.
> What equally easy methods would you use in your favorite OS?
Don't know offhand; partition images, other than perhaps for
large-scale roll-outs of multiple client PCs, strikes me as a
particularly silly thing to do. Is it that easy? Perhaps, perhaps
not. Is that relevant? I doubt it; ask your typical home PC user how
many times a week they have a need to do this.
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!!
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:18:23 -0700
Spud wrote:
> > The original config was correct when the crash
> Sheer assertion, or did you actually examine it?
=======================
I already replied to entire post, but I would
like to point out one thing about the above
excerpt. The line attributed to me (with the
>>) originally read:
>> The original config was correct when the crash
>> happened. I checked all of that stuff when I
>> setup the User ID and Workgroup names.
Seems to me Spud prefers to make debating
points by editing and misquoting.
Why don't I find this surprising?
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:49:04 +0100
"Glenn Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi,
>
> Lets say a late model Pentium with 128MB of memory, 10Mb/s network
> card acting as a local area network server to about 10 client PC's
> running a mixture of windows 95 and windows 98.
>
> I know of one organisation with a configuration like this and they are
> using Windows NT. They are thinking of purchasing another 10
> computers but they are told they will have to increase the RAM in
> their server in order to be able to handle the extra load.
For 10 extra PC's I don't think they'll need extra RAM. What reasons were
given for the memory upgrade?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:35:02 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Any Corel O2K Users?
I'm considering Corel O2K for Linux. I see at http://www.linux.com
StarOffice is still more popular. I currently have SO5.1
Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
PS: I need to Import/Export lots of M$ Office docs - StarOffice works
for about 60% of the Imports. Will WP be more successful? -- It seems
every e-mail correspondent just assumes you have M$ Office these days...
Thanx !
Nico.
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
They seem to have learned the habit of cowering before authority even when
not actually threatened. How very nice for authority. I decided not to
learn this particular lesson.
-- Richard Stallman
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!!
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 03:00:31 -0700
"Arthur Frain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Spud wrote:
>
> > > The original config was correct when the crash
>
> > Sheer assertion, or did you actually examine it?
>
> -----------------------
>
> I already replied to entire post, but I would
> like to point out one thing about the above
> excerpt. The line attributed to me (with the
> >>) originally read:
>
> >> The original config was correct when the crash
> >> happened. I checked all of that stuff when I
> >> setup the User ID and Workgroup names.
>
> Seems to me Spud prefers to make debating
> points by editing and misquoting.
Not quite; I mentioned a very specific and not usually used method of
checking; to date I haven't seen you state that yes, in fact, you
checked using that method. As such, the latter half of the statement
you made wasn't relevant.
>
> Why don't I find this surprising?
You should; I don't snip to misquote; when I do snip, it's to remove
the stuff I'm not responding to. In this case, it was the part about
"I'd already checked that", since it wasn't relevant to the question
being asked - namely did you check it a _specific way_?
Now perhaps you did, in fact, state that you had used that method, and
I managed to overlook such a statement; if so, that's my fault, and I
apologize.
------------------------------
From: Lewcifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts
Date: 24 Jul 2000 10:05:04 GMT
In soc.singles Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Richard Feynman shared the Nobel Prize with 2 other physicists,
> who all arrived at the same thing working independantly.
James Henry Altman was committed to the psychiatric ward of Bellevue
Hospital at the same time Joanna Leary was sent there for observation.
>> --
>> .-----.
>> |[ ] | Stephen Edwards | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>> | = :| "I'm too polite to use that word, so I'll just say,
>> | | 'bite me, you baboon-faced ass-scratcher.'"
>> |_..._| --SEGA's Seaman on the "F" word.
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
> I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
> B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
> C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
> D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
> E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
> F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
> G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
> H: Knackos...you're a retard.
--
Warning: This message was not sent by the author. Had it been sent by
the author, a declaration would have been filed in the State of issue.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
