Linux-Advocacy Digest #572, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic
Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill? (A transfinite number of monkeys)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:14:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Nathaniel Jay Lee escribió:
>> [...]
>> >Code forking does happen. Who cares?
>>
>> Everyone who uses the code, doesn't want to take on the full
>> responsibility of supporting their fork themselves, and sees benefit in
>> maintaining a single cohesive PC OS market. And has enough brains to
>> see how they might be adversely affected by code forking.
>
>A single cohesive PC OS market? Have you noticed there is another
>OS out there? I think they call it windows.
Not for long.
[...]
>> Because it will decrease the value of Linux to him, possibly quite
>> drastically, possibly mostly theoretically, but definitely decreased.
>> Its called "the network effect"; what software other people are using is
>> important to you, and whether you are using the same software.
>
>In what ways?
You're trying to second-guess him. It should be enough for you to know
that it would decrease the value of Linux to him if he says it would;
he's your customer. In this way, if in no other, "the customer is
always right."
[...]
>> Because he's willing to pay for it?
>
>Then pay and get it.
In reference to your previous question, this is why it would make Linux
less valuable to him, BTW. Because then he would have to pay and get
it, but that would only be one of them. He doesn't want to *have* to
make a choice between two different Linuxes. He wants there to be only
one Linux base, because otherwise, the network effect *may* present him
with obstacles to interoperability. And even if your claim is that he
can keep getting the one that satisfies him, that doesn't undo the harm
of fragmentation, even if he is never specifically dissatisfied with the
fork that he is supporting.
>> But he doesn't want the price to
>> get too high because the more lucrative market is in making newbies
>> believe that you make a system more efficient the more unreliable you
>> make it, decreasing the availability of sources for more sane
>> engineering design?
>
>This is just too strange. I can't even parse it.
Someone else's choice to put X into Linux will affect him even if Linux
without kernel X is still available. There is a decent amount of
support in market theory for the fact that opening up a lucrative and
popular opportunity can "starve" previously profitable enterprises of
resources.
[...]
>> Yes, and he's trying to influence its development. He isn't supposed to
>> have to fight the engineers in advocating good design; why are you
>> taking up the market-droid's fight for them, Roberto?
>
>"I don't want a windows clone" is not a design choice. And why do you
>see fit to insult people labeling them "marketroids"?
Because the line between market research and advertising and market
manipulation and propaganda is under-observed, just as the line between
competing and monopolizing is.
Specifically, his general "I don't want a Windows clone" was "I think
putting the graphical subsystem into the kernel is a bad idea due to
unreliability and slippery slope problems". Does that sound more like a
design choice? Or are you merely going to thwart his attempts to
influence development by pedantically insisting that he has to deal with
specific code segments before he can make his obvious point clear to
you?
[...]
>> Because its a stupid idea. We thought you were technically competent
>> enough to know that.
>
>Who's "we"?
Everyone who thought that you were technically competent enough to know
that, I suppose. I hadn't taken a survey, but I was being charitable in
including Nathaniel. He may not have thought you were technically
competent at all, for all I know.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:15:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> So just why doesn't KDE work to divorce themselves of QT, and what are
>> the advantages of having QT? Why?
>
>I don't think anyone can give you a "KDE opinion". I can give you mine:
>I like Qt. I find it nice to code with. I see no reason to change,
>except the opinion of others. I may have too strong an ego to care.
Fair enough.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:24:07 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >> >> If we use pre-existing values to choose values, where did the
> >> >> >> pre-existing values come from?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Education, mostly.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, that would be "other people's values", then, eh?
> >> >
> >> >Not after you are educated. But yeah, at first you do what your
> >> >dad tells you is good, and don't do what he tells you is bad.
> >> >
> >> >> And where did> they come from?
> >> >
> >> >Their education, mostly.
> >>
> >> Well, aside from trying to make this exchange move as slowly as possible
> >> while you catch up to the full philosophical ramifications of your
> >> presumptions, is there a point to your failing to recognize the tenuous
> >> nature of this recursive argument?
> >
> >Are you asking me if I have a hidden intention which I advance by
> >not understanding that my argument is tenuous? That is way too
> >convoluted to deserve an answer.
>
> Is that a yes or a no? Or should I be satisfied with your abandoning
> the recursive argument entirely?
It's a "why on earth are you asking me that strange question, and
what makes you think I should answer it?".
> >> There are three possibilities (as always; all dichotomies are false
> >> ones)
> >> a) People choose their values
> >> b) People learn their values from others
> >> c) People may or may not choose to learn, or learn to choose, but the
> >> situation is more complicated than can be understood if you accept
> >> either a blanket assumption of an absolute moral code OR a
> >> post-modernist relativity in which everyone determines their own ethics
> >> through pure free will.
> >
> >Interesting, you accuse me of being a post-modern relativist, yet
> >you say post-modern relativists say everyone determines their
> >own ethics to free will.
> >
> >Since I don't say that, I guess you must accept I am not a postmodern
> >relativist.
>
> Not a very good one, at least, if you don't realize you did make this
> your position, by accusing everyone who would place any but the most
> relativistic constraints (lack of constraints beyond personal morals) on
> ethical judgement of demanding an "absolute moral canon".
You label too easily. If it's not personal and it's not universal,
what is it? local? national? continental? temporal?
> >> So how would you like to proceed? A discussion of whether free will
> >> exists, or a discussion of whether ethics are determined by 'putatively
> >> universal social consensus', not personal morality? I'm flexible, take
> >> your pick.
> >
> >I'd rather not pick one or the other, but just start ignoring you more
> >militantly.
>
> Fortunately, from your perspective, that allows you to ignore my
> arguments, as well. So long as you don't forget them, there's little
> more I can say on the matter then.
Yipee!
Forgotten.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:17:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> >>
>> >> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> > It seems to be the central issue, I think. If it is simply a matter of
>> >> > one Usenet poster showing or failing to show respect for another Usenet
>> >> > poster, I'd suggest it has nothing to do with the Linux community.
>> >> > Though I must admit that Usenet is a much stronger part of the Linux
>> >> > community than most other communities.
>> >>
>> >> It is more so a problem when the person showing a lack of basic respect for
>> >> the long time users of Linux is a member of a official development team of a
>> >> well know project like Roberto is for the KDE development team.
>> >
>> >This is wrong in so many ways I must speak.
>> >I show a lack of respect for long time users of Linux?
>> >I lack respect for SOME of them, indeed.
>> >I am a member of a "official development team" in the same way anyone
>> >willing to spend his time coding is, so it's not too "official", really.
>> >
>> >> He seems to
>> >> discount the concerns of the very user base that have assisted building OS
>> >> into a platform that makes his project possible.
>> >
>> >Nonsense. If you feel a need to throw an ad hominem at me,
>> >I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
>>
>> Good for you, Roberto. You have every right to say "fuck you" to anyone
>> who second-guesses you.
>>
>> But if you don't mind, could you accept an honest and humble plea to
>> re-examine, possibly, even double-check, whether your being as honorable
>> in your support of a project which seeks to extract profit on
>> potentially dubious value?
>
>Hmmm... KDE doesn't seek to extract profit. So no.
That's what I don't understand. Does QT seek to extract profit?
>> Do you really think so little of your
>> ability to write software? Shouldn't your honest work be sufficient for
>> providing an honest and equitable level of profit without preventing
>> access to the ideas which underlay your efforts?
>
>I have no clue of what you are talking about.
By using QT you invest effort into limiting the liberty of the users of
your product. If the only reason you have to use QT is that it works,
and you like it, and you're familiar with it, and the only reason you
have to avoid using QT is that you get hate mail for using it, I would
think you'd have enough professional pride to question more strongly the
choice to use QT. I know it isn't necessarily only your personal
decision, and wouldn't go so far as to suggest that your ethical
response should be to quit KDE, but it might be more like
"pigheadedness", rather than, as you said "a strong ego" which prevents
you from considering this issue more seriously.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:18:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:05:04 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >>Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> >>Screw KDE. Its a commercial development project.
>> >
>> >That is an outright lie. KDE is free software. Even RMS agrees that
>> >QT satisfies the definition of free software, despite his misgivings
>> >about that license.
>>
>> Maybe you should clarify. AFAIK, KDE requires the 'consumer' to agree
>> not to copy certain libraries. This is not free software. Please
>> correct me if I'm mistaken in either regard.
>
>You are mistaken.
Then please correct me. I don't recall asking "please contradict me
with no explanation if you think I am mistaken". Stop being a troll,
for christ's sake.
[...]
>> I was under the impression that KDE was a directly commercial venture
>> which seeks to make money on distributing their developments. I don't
>> consider that an inherently unethical act, but I do question why it is
>> considered competitive with GNOMES purely open approach.
>
>What gave you such a weird impression?
The FSF rhetoric, probably, or a media report of the same. This is an
old post you're responding to, though. I recalled more of the details
concerning QT and the non-commercial nature of KDE while reconsidering
the matter.
[...]
>A lot of KDE code is "more free than GPL". Check out the KOffice
>licensing.
Please, I have no more time for any more research; I've already got
enough to last me for months. And I don't want to get into another
discussion of "there is nothing 'more free' than GPL", which I'm afraid
is still the case, when the metaphor "free software" is properly
understood.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:04:32 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >I may have too strong an ego to care.
> >
> > I will second that! ;-)
>
> Hey, I am not ashamed of it ;-)
Good! It is always important to know, Who are you? and What do you want?
But be careful how you answer those questions and to whom.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:20:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> Screw KDE. Its a commercial development project. They're trying to
>> leverage free software for their own private gain; GNOME rules. Any
>> ideas KDE can come up with, GNOME can replicate. That's not FUD, that's
>> the god's honest truth.
>
>I don't get it. Do you know the address of KDE corp. by chance? ;-)
<G> No, I couldn't find it. ;-)
I was mislead by the rhetoric, as I've said. I'm still not a fan of
KDE, but don't see anything wrong with an alternative to GNOME, either.
I'd just wish you understood the literary aspects of software enough to
know that requiring QT is counter-productive, possibly in the extreme.
[...]
>The investors that pay me don't pay me to code, they pay me to be the
>director of the technical department of a local office of a linux
>distribution (http://www.conectiva.com.ar/staff.php3).
>
>And in fact, I have not coded much since they started paying me.
>
>Most of the code I have released was coded on my own time.
Thanks for clarifying that, certainly. The problem, of course, is not
with you, but with the investors, that is my point. If they are trying
to build a product they can give away and make money on some secondary
'market', as is the case with most GPL projects, that is fine. If they
are attempting to monopolize the 'market' for Linux GUIs, it is not
fine. If the former is true, however, I don't see why they would be
satisfied basing their production on a library that limits the
distribution of their software.
Just who are these investors (generally), and how are they expecting to
make a return on their investment?
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and
Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating)
Date: 22 Aug 2000 21:22:39 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:56:07 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:04:35 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> Your deliberate attempts to misrepresent Roberto, who's a fairly well
>> >known
>> >> member of the community do very little for your credibility.
>> >
>> >Emperor's new clothes.
>>
>> Note: no rebuttal presented.
>
>Are you certain? Consider that story in the lite of your statement.
I don't see any relevance. If you're saying that Roberto's contributions
to the community somehow "lack substance", you are dead wrong. Besides it's
somewhat perihperal to the fact that deliberate attempts to misrepresent
anyone in a debate are not a credibility booster.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:37:03 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> [...]
> >> >You see, you still don't understand. the "T" is not a representation
> >> >of the effects, it's a representation of the bit itself.
> >>
> >> The affects are an abstraction;
> >
> >Oh, no. The effects are very concrete. They cause some electrons
> >to go to one state instead of another.
>
> I think you meant "discrete", not "concrete".
I think I meant concrete, as in "not abstract".
> There is nothing about an abstraction which makes it non-discrete,
> per se. To suggest that bits flipping is not abstract is trivial
> reductionism, entirely misrepresentative of the context of the argument.
So, you say that bits in your HD are abstract? Amazing.
> >> the visual presentation, while
> >> meaningless in your perspective, is all that the person who doesn't
> >> *already understand* has to attempt to understand the abstraction, and
> >> therefore what the discussion was about, what my request was, and why
> >> the explanations I was getting were less than helpful.
> >
> >What can I say? No. a "t" is useless to understand what the abstraction
> >is. It can only help you see if it's active or not.
>
> Having a visual representation of an abstraction is absolutely the most
> useful way to learn to grasp, or understand, an abstraction.
The "t" is not a representation of the abstraction, it's a
representation
of whether the abstraction is applied to one specific object.
[snip a lot]
> >> >A representation of the effects would be something very different,
> >> >such as a view of the memory mapping of a running program. Which is
> >> >something you probably will never see.
> >>
> >> And never need to see, as I already have the abstraction of what the
> >> sticky bit *does*; the only point of confusion which was supposedly
> >> being discussed was why I had it confused with the setuid bit.
> >
> >That's reason for introspection, not for a usenet post.
>
> I fail to see a difference between the two, I'm afraid.
Hint: one doesn't involve using a newsreader.
[snip more]
> >> The answer
> >> is that either is rarely something that comes up a lot for the majority
> >> of Unix users, and they are both represented by changes to the execute
> >> bit in the permissions.
> >
> >You still don't get it. No, the execute bit is not changed.
> >Sigh.
>
> You still don't get it, either. The "execute bit" refers ambiguously to
> both the control mechanism represented and its representation.
No, if you want to use terminology as everyone else.
Are you humpty dumpty? Do the words mean whatever you want when you
use them?
> When asked "where is the execute bit?", you, as well as anyone else, would,
> (if forced to respond through gestures) point to the representation, not
> some arbitrary number of electrons hovering amidst the electromagnetic
> fields of the CPU or RAM chips.
"where is the execute bit?" is not an answerable question, really.
> Have you another term for the particular position within the permissions
> representations other than "the execute bit"? (Say "the setuid bit" or
> some such and you'll prove you missed the point.)
"The (group/user/world) execute bit's position."
> If so, you haven't used it, but seem to be trying to ridicule me for
> not knowing it. What's up with that?
What's up with what?
> >[snip]
> >> [...]
> >> >So, you see a "t" in a directory's permissions, and you know you can
> >> >only delete your own files, without being told that. Yeah, sure.
> >> >So much for the uselessness of our answers.
> >>
> >> That happens quite rarely even for people with much more experience than
> >> I.
> >
> >It happens every day, to every unix user. You may not know it,
> >though.
>
> Yea, sure. How about 'they might not know it, either; in fact, the
> overwhelming majority of them don't'. Just how pedantic are you
> planning to be, son?
They don't know it, is not the same as it doesn't happen. How pedantic
do you have to be to believe that what you don't know doesn't happen?
And if I could be your son, you must be some old geezer.
> [...]
> >The functional purpose is not abstract. The visual representation,
> >though, is an abstraction of the real implementation of the bit.
>
> There's that too-literal mind-set at work again. No, the functional
> purpose is an abstraction, because it is not concrete. There is no
> sensual data to communicate its existence to the user.
Of course there is. You just use an instrument to read it.
It's called a computer.
> The visual
> representation, on the other hand, is concrete. It has form and
> substance. This form and substance is not "electrons making pixels
> glow", but the letter 't' in a particular position within a visual
> display. Of course, that is an *abstraction*, in its own right, as all
> communication is.
I said it was an abstraction, and you called me "too literally minded".
Are you too?
> But it is observable directly, not indirectly, so it
> is not abstract.
Quick, how can a abstract thing (the bit, you say) produce
a concrete output (the "t")? Could it be that the bit is
concrete, and the t is just an abstraction used to make
"seeing" the bit simpler?
> The 'bit', wherever one wishes to point to it, is
> whether or not you can delete files in the directory or whatever.
No, that's the effect of the bit. The effect != the object.
The bit itself can probably be defined, if you really want to,
as a small section of magnetized disk.
> Definitely an abstract concept.
Nope. It's at least as concrete as that "t". A bunch of electrons.
> >> >> In distinguishing the sticky bit from the setuid bit,
> >> >> and in clarifying that they are not at all related, it seemed rather
> >> >> definitive. They could, after all, have been in the same position, just
> >> >> as either shares a place with the executive bit.
> >> >
> >> >Notice that although they share the position with the x bit, you can
> >> >still say if the x bit is set or not. They are not the same as the x
> >> >bit, either. So, if they can share a position with a bit and be
> >> >differnt, they could also share (or not) a postion with each other and be
> >> >different.
> >> >
> >> >The position they use makes no difference one way or the other.
> >>
> >> Which only makes the issue more confusing for those not already familiar
> >> with it.
> >
> >Not for someone who is trying to understand.
>
> Spoken like someone who not only already understands, but is incapable
> of remembering what it was like not to understand, and doesn't see why
> others don't understand more readily than they do.
I remember when I didn't understand it. I was told "read the chmod
page",
I did, and now I understand. Whopee.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re:
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:27:26 -0400
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> >Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >>
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >> If I ever start an obnoxious 'anti-troll' sig like you, Aaron, I will
> >> >> definitely include this. You've made the archive at least.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now will you please abandon the "confirmation bias" which prevents you
> >> >> from realizing that your sig is not only obnoxious but useless and
> >> >> meaninglessly annoying?
> >> >
> >> >It is far from useless. It has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the number of
> >> >hit-and-run attacks by the individuals named within...which is
> >> >EXACTLY what I designed it to do.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I have a question for you. How SIGNIFICANTLY has it
> >> increased the number of 'I hate Aaron's sig' postings? I
> >
> >Only among idiots who don't bother to consider the PURPOSE and EFFECT
> >of my .sig... in which case, no great loss.
> >
> >
>
> Well, there are plenty of people that have heard your
> rationalization of your sig. We have heard your purpose
> and effect bullshit story over and over.
Provide proof to the contrary.
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:33:37 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:27:18 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >Check it out Leon, Oracle ships with default admin passwords, MySQL
: >ships with default passwords. If you are so unfamiliar with the
:
: The oracle rdms installer since at least version 7.1.x has
: forced the admin to set passwords for the superuser accounts.
Not so.
I just installed 8.1.6.1 EE on Linux the other day. After I installed,
I created a database using dbassist, and had it create the db, rather
than save shell scripts. At no point in time did it ask me to change
the passwords for sys, system or ctxsys. I had to go into sqlplus
and do it myself.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
