Linux-Advocacy Digest #882, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 06:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (abraxas)
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Giuliano Colla)
Re: How low can they go...? (Darren Winsper)
linux application for presenstations... (Esa Tiiliharju)
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: linux application for presenstations... (Nic)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 00:11:04 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:49:36 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
> > You don't know what slander means, apparently. It isn't the
> >same as not having a high opinion of someone, and saying it, in a public
> >forum or elsewhere.
>
> 1. a malicious, false, and injurious statement spoken about a person.
> 2. the uttering of such statements; calumny.
> 3. [Law] false oral defamation (cf. /libel
>
> Nowhere does it say that you have to be deliberately lying to be
> guilty of slander. Someone who slanders is either lying or ignorant.
> In your case, I'd postulate the latter.
I have found all these comments about slander quite amusing, since it is
100% impossible to ever slander anyone while communicating via usenet. The
reason for the impossibility has been lightly touched on but so far it seems
that everyone has missed a key point. It is slander if spoken but it is
libel if it is written. So this discussion should be about libel and not
slander.
Examine #1 above. Accepting that deffinition what four point have to all
be met for a statement to be slander?
(a) It has to be malicious.
(b) It has to be false.
(c) It has to be injurious.
(d) It has to be *spoken*.
If *any* of these point are not met, it is not slander.
For an act to be malicious means that it was perform with an evil intent.
For a false statement to be a lie it has to be made by a person who *knows*
that statement is false; so all lies by deffinition are intentional.
So a key word describing both malicious and lie is a varation of the work
intent. That means that according to (a) above slanderious statement has to
be a deliberate and intentional act with full knowledge that the statement
is false; otherwise it is not slander. Your statement to the contrary is an
oxymoron.
Now, please carry on with your petty bickering. -- Lt.Cmdr Data
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: 4 Sep 2000 07:29:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> `man rm' from 4.4BSD Lite2:
>> `man rm' from Solaris:
>> `man rm' from Unix Seventh Edition:
>> `man rm' GNU fileutils (aka Linux rm)
>
> Irix 6.2... -r only no -R.
>
While we're nitpicking, I was merely dating myself.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 07:45:14 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> >Who do you work for, Max? [...]
> >>
> >> I work for ELTRAX, soon to be Verso Technologies. We are big in ASP and
> >> network services. I work in the Manages Services group, which
> >> implements Network Operations Centers using software like Netcool, HP
> >> OpenView, NerveCenter, Concord Network Health, Remedy ARS, etc. I do
> >> consulting and educational presentations and instruction. AFAIK, we
> >> have no particular arrangements with Microsoft or any Linux vendor.
> >
> >OK... so I'll take you at your word. Now do the same courtesy to Mike and
> >take him at his. He's already said who he works for.
>
> I am not aware that Mike has done so, nor even responded to my
> questions. Perhaps I've missed the message traffic. What precisely did
> he say?
Metris Companies
No I don't reply or post on compay time.
We use AIX on the server side (67 servers at this datacenter) and Windows NT
4.0 on all desktops. I have shown Windows 2000 to be a better server platform
and have been told, "It's a real shame those RS/6000's can't run it". I said,
we could buy all new Dell's or Compaq's for the price of a single year service
contract. They said too bad corporate is all IBM. We could really use that
power.
Obviously I don't represent Metris' position on this matter. Nor should I be on
any matter as I separate my business posts carefully.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 07:52:38 GMT
"Andrew Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> While we're nitpicking, let's not ignore the fact that, no matter how
> dangerous 'rm -rf /*' might be in its ability to delete anything, it can
> only do so if you have root privelidges. A user who types that command
> might erase all his own files, but he can't take the entire system with
> him...
Come on... we're also talking about Windows 9X -- where there's no security
in the file system at all.
Simon
------------------------------
From: <[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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 00:32:20 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 19:36:55 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> [...]
> >>No, its a trade secret.
> >
> >So the only difference between the API and the recipe is secrecy.
>
> The only difference between tears and rain is quantity. They are two
> entirely different things.
And both saline content and acidity? ;-)
------------------------------
From: <[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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 00:46:02 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:40:56 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> (BTW, is his name really "Erik"? I seem to have been replicating a
> typo...)
Unless the typo was Erick's it was not typo. Here is his name and email
address from the original message that Roberto provided the URL for: Eirik
Eng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Here is the URL http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-freeqt&m=91244219105556&w=2 to
double check the spelling right from the horse's mouth.
And for the record it was jedi who first brought up the "threat" in this
thread.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 07:55:31 GMT
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >snip<
> :> No shit. Competing is much easier said than done. Superior product is
> :> much easer said than done. Business acumen is much easier said than
> :> done. Deal with it.
> :
> : How about you write us something along the lines of photoshop... or even
> : solitaire. Make it completely portable. And why not at the same time
> : explain how easy or not it was to do. Because unless *YOU* do it, it
looks
> : like you've got a damn big opinion on you, and you're not going to
accept
> : anyone else's experience to the contrary.
>
> Hmm, Gimp anyone?
Sure! In which case... please provide details of the porting effort, and how
much work was involved, and how it was done.
The point of the exercize was to do it and then report how much pain (or
lack thereof) was experienced -- not to point at something and say "Oh yeah!
They already did it! Ha!" without giving any kind of indication as to how
easy (or not) it was for them.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 10:25:11 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 09:19:59 GMT, Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >MrTroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Results like these speak for themselves. You just don't get more stable and
> >> reliable that Unix.
> >
> >Bah, try and say that with VMS or IBM mainframe people around.
> >
> >(But yeah, there are Unices which are pretty stable)
>
> Anything will look rock solid reliable when compared to windoze.
Does anyone remember the good old times when you compared
OS's in terms of performance or fitness for the job, and the
"stability" issue simply didn't exist?
Well, if you don't consider M$, the good old times are still
here!
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: 4 Sep 2000 08:39:46 GMT
On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:25:12 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And if the prior version was DOS from three years and two owners
> previous, and you don't have that disk?
Then get around it. After all, you are entitled to use
the upgrade.
> I've already been over the "you can get around it" justification. I
> thought I'd made that clear. Given A) Win95 upgrade and B) blank hard
> disk, Microsoft makes it difficult and sometimes impossible to install.
Once again, I've not had this problem. I have
installed the Win95 upgrade on blank hard disks before.
> Likewise, given A) Win95 OEM and B) non-blank hard disk, Microsoft makes
> it difficult and sometimes impossible to install.
I've also done that without difficulty. Boot to DOS,
go to D:\WIN95 and type setup.exe. Worked for me.
> Its an unreasonable
> expense on the consumer, its anti-competitive, and its wrong. Case
> closed.
Let's take a look at Win98 and the up-coming upgrade,
ME. To install it, you can boot from the CD and if
it's an OEM version, it will install onto a blank disk
or a previous installation of the same OS version. If it's
an upgrade, it will install over a previous version or
it will ask you to insert the appropriate disk to prove
you are entitled to use the upgrade.
I am no fan of Microsoft, but I really do think you are
making a mountain out of a molehile here.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: Esa Tiiliharju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linux application for presenstations...
Date: 04 Sep 2000 12:04:57 +0300
Dear linuxers,
Is there a linux-application for creating presentations (foils) which
can produce Microsoft PowerPoint97 compatible output?
Reason for asking this is that I am required to produce PP97-format
and I do not want to use MS -products...
==============
Esa Tiiliharju
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: +358 9 451 5406 fax: +358 9 451 2269
Piiritekniikan Laboratorio/ Electronic Circuit Design Lab/
Teknillinen Korkeakoulu Helsinki University of Technology
PL 3000/02015 TKK P.O.Box/02015 HUT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.anarchy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet,alt.flame.niggers
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 09:19:15 GMT
alt.flame.niggers removed from followups.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 3 Sep 2000 19:19:36 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Its' Labar day now and every Commy-loving Lie-nux Commy and his
>dog that cappitollists paid for think's that working peopal bilt
>this cuontry all by themselfs but let me teal you peepal tht they
>coulda'nt done it without capptittallists and there monney.
An interesting, if poorly-written from a techical sense, idea.
(You do need to work on your diction, sir. No doubt others
have pointed this out many times.)
There is the possibility of consideration of the idea that Linux
is built on a foundation which Microsoft propagated -- in other
words, Linux is only there because Microsoft and Intel were there
first on a piece of hardware that would otherwise have been swamped
by the likes of Apple (which was at the time, an even more
proprietary and closed system, albeit more user-friendly),
Commodore Amiga, Atari, and others -- all of which were closed
systems, with limited potential for modification by the end-user
outside of the parameters intended by the manufacturer/developer.
By contrast, the IBM PC was a relatively open system, complete
with published source code for the BIOS! (This was back in
about 1985 or so, perhaps.) Anyone could modify the hardware,
and frequently did (the PC clones). Whether this was intentional
on IBM's part or not is debatable -- most likely, it was not.
However, to draw the conclusion that one must purchase Microsoft
on such a system is a bit strange, even were the original idea
true -- and it's not clear that it is. For starters, there was
DR-DOS, PC-DOS, 4DOS, and a few others at one point; these were
MS-DOS competitors. Other specialized systems may also have been
in existence at some point -- and of course game writers could,
and frequently did, either made their games directly bootable
from floppy, bypassing DOS more or less completely, or contracted
with someone to write a DOS extender (DOOM is such a game) that
allows for certain issues within DOS, such as the conventional
memory mess, to be ignored.
In an ideal world, Windows wouldn't care. As it turns out,
Windows *does* care, and MS-DOS does, too. (See Andrew Schullman's
work _Unauthorized Windows 95_ for proof of this admittedly
bizarre-looking concept. Be warned that this work is laden with
large amounts of debugging data, but it's an interesting read.)
>Labar is just a commoddity like the masheans it opporates.
>Without Cappitol it just sits thear like a stuppit hoarse or a mual.
>People that want labarers to halve all the power want us to be like
>country's whear poeple like to kill each other all the time,
>like Kosovo thoas peppel are fucked up aren't thay? But hear inthe
>US, we halve LAWS. And LAWS protect all teh smart peeple with the
>monney from all the stuppit broots out thear that want to take it all
>away and blow it off on hookers and beer and destroy society.
Now I'm getting slightly confused. To be rather pedantic about it,
laws are meaningless without enforcement -- but I am unaware of
laws that protect "smart people with the money from all of the stupid
brutes out there". Laws protect everybody; they protect the "stupid
(but hard-working) brutes" who save their money from the smart
criminals who might take it, too. (Not that criminals are all
that intelligent, by and large; the smart ones don't get caught,
but the even smarter individuals don't have to commit crimes,
since they would be in demand and get paid top dollar in
legitimate enterprises.)
At least, they're supposed to. I don't know if they're entirely
successful. (I will also note, as an aside, that there are
certain laws that do in fact protect very specific individuals,
and are carefully written so as not to call them out by name.
I do not care for these laws, myself -- but they're there.)
As for how Linux fits into all this? I'm not sure. Linux is
a labor of love, that much is clear -- that might account for
its higher quality initially; however, now that it's become
a corporate interest as well (IBM, for starters, supports Linux now),
it's quite possible to get higher quality yet. That might sound
strange, but IBM's good at pickiness, and they also know that
anyone else can propose a patch as well to this very open system,
so aren't about to slip in anything stupid, such as an intentional
crash if one of their competitors' cards is put into a machine.
At least, not if they want to continue existing as a
hard-driving law-abiding corporation. (And they've learned
their lesson, too -- IBM had their day in court regarding
certain monopolistic practices of their own regarding mainframes,
if I'm not totally mistaken.)
Microsoft, by contrast, could hide mountains of crap in their
proprietary system. While hackers can find them (hex dumps
aren't that hard to generate, even if they are now illegal under
new "anti-reverse-engineering" laws), it's clear that Joe
User isn't going to look very hard, but might trip over one
by accident. (Or on purpose; there are people out there who
hunt for "easter eggs" -- and find them!)
>
>If it wasant' for capitlists, you'd all still be living on farm's,
>working 20 ours a day and then you'd half to fite off the primait
>Indions the other for hours and you think that 12 is bad?
"Primate Indians"?
The Native Americans will probably hotly dispute that -- and I
certainly hope that they do so! (I am not Native American, myself.)
Sheesh.
>And the
>governmant wouldnt of got rid of the indions withotu cappitol
>either they wood of just let them run all over the plaice and
>we'd halve a MESS today but the capittolists said NO
>THEAS STUPPIT INDIONS ARE CAUSTING US MONNY GET RID OF THEM RITE NOW!
Um, you're getting *really* confusing here. Capitalists aren't
supposed to lean on their government; their primary concern
is selling in a relatively free and open marketplace.
To suggest that capitalists leaned on the US government to
"get rid of the Indians" is wildly simplifying what was
(and still is) a highly complex and dynamic situation
(and, in the past, a bloody one).
One would hope that in the Naughties [*] that we've progressed
beyond simplistic "cowboys and Indians" nonsense. (Note that
"cowboys" have more or less disappeared from the lexicon too;
"ranch managers" or "ranch employees" might be a substitute.
Also, the homestead is now more or less the corporate farm,
and Native Americans don't sit around in reservations any more, they
work and play with the rest of us. Signs of the times, I guess.)
>
>Commy union's are gettign what they want now becoze thear is a
>labar shortadge (we halvent replaced it all with tecknollogy yet),
>and all they reelly do is make everyboddy pour even the workors.
It is not clear that unions haven't outlived their usefulness.
However, they were originally formed to seek redress for the
abuses of capitalists, or perhaps to counterbalance the monopolistic
employers with some monopsony of their own -- resulting in higher
wages for their members, much like a monopoly can raise their
prices for selling their product.
Of course, there are issues with higher wages -- for starters, they
raise the cost of creating the product, which gets passed on
in part to the consumer (the rest gets eaten by the corporation).
>They make company's worhtless and noboddy want's to by there stalk
>so thay half to sell it real cheap. We half to get rid of union's
>and there stupit dimmands for higher wages and job securety.
"Stupid demands"? Why are they stupid?
>Lixnu is getting stronger to, because company's don't realize how
>mutch munny their losing when they don't run Windows.
Perhaps it's because the CEO's are realizing how much money
they are losing when they DO run Windows -- after all, a
server that blue-screens doesn't serve too well! (It's not
too clear to me that a BSOD can be rebooted from after a
set time, either, although watchdog cards could presumably
be installed if necessary.)
>They halve so mutch monny they don't know what to due with
>it, so they make all there workors diddle around with Linux
>all day, and they make Microsoft's stalk go down the toob,
>wich makes everyboddy lose monny, because who doesant own
>Microsoft stalk except Linux zellots and those stupit
>peopel at McDonnalds that always get the order rong.
You want fries with that mangled sentence? :-)
As for corporations having so much money to throw around learning
a new OS -- let me suggest that there are a fair number of
dotcoms (I am currently employed at one) who want to ensure that
their hardware and their employees (and their money!) are doing
their very best. One would hope that Linux is sufficiently
polished (it's getting there) so as to allow employees to get
their actual work done, be it development in C++, Java, or
whatever, without worrying about whether their operating system
is going to Bite the Big One.
It also helps that the OS scales nicely from a tiny 386
to a gigantic IBM S/390, with a lot of systems in between.
Can Microsoft do that?
And there's a lot of Unix code out there, that can be readily
ported to Linux, and vice versa. (Linux code could be ported
to NT, as well -- but it takes quite a bit more work; NT code
can be ported to Linux, but that takes even more work, and a
lot of supporting libraries as well.)
>Meanwhile, the CommyLinux CommyVirus is gettign put
>in place, and pretty soon we'll all half to surrendor
>to the Commy's because if we don't our computors will
>crash and itl'l be like Y2K with no ellectrissitty and
>all that Capitol has done for uss wil be destroyed.
You're seriously suggesting that Microsoft is a better solution
for crashes than Linux?
While I do have some worry about the 2038 problem (time_t values
aren't supposed to be negative), that's a ways off, and by then
we'll hopefully all be 64-bit, anyway.
Linux is quite ready for 64-bit -- it's running on Alphas now
without any trouble. Microsoft Windows NT, by contrast, has to
run in a special 32-bit mode, if I'm not mistaken.
And from what I've seen of the base Windows API, I'm not all
that hopeful. (Side point: Windows still can't properly display
timestamps from future-time files -- a minor issue if one's
network has clock skew.)
[*] I've yet to see a better term for years ending in double-zero --
certain Hanna-Barbera cartoons such as Dick Dastardly in
"Wacky Racers" notwithstanding. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misspelling here
------------------------------
From: Nic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux application for presenstations...
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:36:46 +1200
Esa Tiiliharju wrote:
>
> Is there a linux-application for creating presentations (foils) which
> can produce Microsoft PowerPoint97 compatible output?
StarOffice can definately read PowerPoint97 presentations, and may be
able to save them too - give it a try.
http://www.sun.com/staroffice/
Regards,
Nic.
--
Nic Bellamy's non-official mailbox: < sky at wibble dot net >
Internet Software & Security Consulting - http://www.bellamy.co.nz/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
