Linux-Advocacy Digest #45, Volume #29 Sun, 10 Sep 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451798 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("David Sidlinger")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Damien)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Damien)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (sinister-catsup)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft ("Moderator")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Moderator")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Gary Hallock)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 21:17:23 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> The point is an EULA does *NOT* confer the 'right' to use the software.
> You already HAVE that right, as the legal owner of the copy. What the
> EULA does is *restrict* YOUR RIGHT to use the software, by requiring
> that you agree to a trade secret license, unrelated to copyright
> protection, in order to *acquire* the software.
No - the point is, the EULA does give the right to use the software:
http://www.bsa.org/middleeast/about/faq.html
1.2 What is the significance of the end-user license agreement?
In addition to the copyright law, your use of software products is governed
by the terms of the contract between you and software manufacturer<the
end-user license agreement. The end-user license agreement gives you
permission to use the software, grants you additional rights, and imposes
certain restrictions on your use. The end-user license agreement begins with
the "GRANT OF LICENSE" section, which describes how you may use the
software. Also included in the license agreement are restrictions on leasing
or renting the software, reverse engineering the software, and using the
second copy of the dual media disks. In addition, the end-user license
agreement contains limited warranty of the software.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451798
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 01:27:08 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Interestingly, he still didn't respond to the
proof of his continuing lies. He hit the 200 postings-since-late-May level.
203> Here's today's Tholen digest. Interestingly, he still didn't respond to the
203> proof of his continuing lies. He hit the 200 postings-since-yesterday
203> level. To the digest!
203>
203> [Wake me, will ya, when Tholen begins to say anything of any importance at
203> all.]
203>
203> Thanks for reading!
==========
Malloy likes to hear himself. The evidence:
"I take it Tholen has attempted to digest me, but since no message
to that effect appears on my newserver today, I present an oldie:"
--Joe Malloy
Maybe it's because he has trouble seeing. The evidence:
"Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?"
--Joe Malloy
"It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
of the clergy..."
--Eric Bennett
And the question of Slava's that he continues to ignore:
Message-ID: <N8On5.61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:11:34 +1000
"Why do you post exactly the same thing in each one of your
'digests', and then hypocritically accuse Tholen of not saying
'anything of value'?"
--Slava Pestov
"[who is this "Slava," Tholen, one of your sock puppets?]"
--Joe Malloy
And proof that Malloy still lies:
"Notice how he *doesn't* post from his work account"
--Joe Malloy, 2000 August 31
] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Tholen)
] Date: 26 Aug 2000 05:37:32 GMT
] Message-ID: <8o7l2s$sr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"he had a little chat with TPTB, you see."
--Joe Malloy, 2000 August 31
There is no "TPTB" here, Malloy, nor was there any "chat"
with any similar group of people.
------------------------------
From: "David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:32:46 -0500
Just declare a pointer and try to write to it's location in memory w/o
initializing it. Won't work every time, but, eventually, you're going to
cause some freaky stuff to go on. In Windows and Unix, most of the time
these errors are trapped and only affect the running process. However, both
OSs will sometimes respond with something like a cascade failure. Please
note that NT and 2000 also compartmentalize running applications within a
security context, just like Unix. Most of the people in this NG have
experience *administrating* NT, and therefore are usually logged in with
administrative permissions on the machine. This allows applications they
run to have a crack at everything on the system. End users, who don't have
admin rights, run a far smaller risk of one of their apps writing to
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE (or something fun like that). An improperly secured Unix
or Linux machine is just as bad as an improperly configured NT machine.
- David
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:19:47 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | David Sidlinger wrote:
> |
> | > Unix can be broken just as easily as Windows. It's just
> | > that a lot of unskilled developers write apps for Windows that don't
behave.
> | > I can crash a Unix machine with C++ just as easily as I can crash
Windows.
> | >
> |
> | Really? Please explain how a C++ app can crash Unix.
>
> Two rules. It can't run as root, and it has to run under reasonable
ulimits.
>
> Also, I expect you to include the source code so I can run it on a few
> of the machines I have access to.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 Sep 2000 01:52:07 GMT
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:11:11 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| If you wish to use WSH in a login script (as proposed ages ago), all
| that has to work reliably is the login script running reliably, which
| does.
Wasn't the purpose of the login script we were discussing in this
thread to udate the DNS setup of the Windows client to deal with
changes in the DNS necessary to implement Active Directory with W2k.
So here's the problem I'm having: unless you are going to each and
every client to install this script, you need the clients to all be
running a login script from a centralized server.
Now let's assume they are already doing that. User logs into a
workstation, workstation executes a script it retrieves from the
server. Now we go in and change the DNS. Then we change the login
script to update the DNS settings. User returns, logs in and the
workstation goes to locate the server to find the login script to
run. Except now the DNS structure is changed and the workstation
can't find the server.
Wouldn't this be a problem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 Sep 2000 02:05:22 GMT
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:32:46 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft
David Sidlinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:19:47 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft
| > Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | David Sidlinger wrote:
| > |
| > | > Unix can be broken just as easily as Windows. It's just
| > | > that a lot of unskilled developers write apps for Windows that don't
| behave.
| > | > I can crash a Unix machine with C++ just as easily as I can crash
| Windows.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Really? Please explain how a C++ app can crash Unix.
| >
| > Two rules. It can't run as root, and it has to run under reasonable
| ulimits.
| >
| > Also, I expect you to include the source code so I can run it on a few
| > of the machines I have access to.
| Just declare a pointer and try to write to it's location in memory w/o
| initializing it. Won't work every time, but, eventually, you're going to
| cause some freaky stuff to go on.
No freaky stuff. Just a segfault. Everytime. No cascade failure.
No crash. If I had more time I would write the program you described
and run it a few thousand times on a Linux and Sun box. If some one
would be so kind as to write the C code I'll still do it.
*snip*
| Most of the people in this NG have
| experience *administrating* NT, and therefore are usually logged in with
| administrative permissions on the machine.
All because NT doesn't have a simple a program as 'su'.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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, 11 Sep 2000 12:17:35 +1000
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:38:27 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >All said without a single iota of information to support your position.
> >
> >Most of the industry disagrees with you.
>
> Max just enjoys lecturing people who know more than him. He seems to
> suffer from the delusion that he knows better than everyone else,
> though it's obvious to anyone who bothers to read his drivel that he's an
> ignoramus on matters of software design.
Oh, he's much more talented than that. Max is an active and deliberate
ignoramus about a whole _range_ of different topics.....
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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, 11 Sep 2000 12:19:45 +1000
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:28:16 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
>
> >Why ?
>
> Because Max said so. Where you expecting a better reason ?
I was hoping for another long-winded, content-free paragraph (or three)
basically saying "because I said so" but still managing to get the words
"anti-trust" in there somehow :).
------------------------------
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
From: sinister-catsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:23:32 -0400
>=20
> They also tried to make it a closed system, hard to program, etc.=20
> That leads to less software, because only large companies are
> in a position to do any real programming on it. A lack of software
> hurt the Amiga, and the Mac's.
I have frankly heard horror stories about mac programming and how can any=
one
really program someothing for the mac os effectively if the raw guts are =
a
mystery. If the Dark Tower of Redmond has an sdk or two to provide a hint
> The
fact that the early Macs were so big on using "mouse technology" > that t=
hey
refused to put cursor keys on the keyboard was also pretty > stupid. :^)
What I find amusing about that is that early mac mice use one big dumb bu=
tton,
is this a might condescending or is it me?
------------------------------
From: "Moderator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:32:01 -0400
If Microsoft creates backdoors in their closed source
software, (not that I'm saying such, but it *is* closed-source
and such a trick wouldn't be hard to pull off), wouldn't
Microsoft have more power than our own government?
--
"Hellfire rages in my eyes
Blood will fall, not rain this night
The coming curse, your anti-Christ, I am the Watcher's eye
I vindicate and cleanse the Earth of all mankind."
-Iced Earth
TechnoJoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p9hf1$50ig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> A recent OSOpinion article perked my interest about the Navy's recent
> decision to use the Microsoft Windows operating system in its next
> generation aircraft carrier
------------------------------
From: "Moderator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:35:53 -0400
Lina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:OE5u5.20452$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>Will an end-user alternative similar to Linux appear anytime
> soon?
www.apple.com
www.beos.com
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:33:52 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8phf9s$9ck$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:28:16 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >Why ?
> >
> > Because Max said so. Where you expecting a better reason ?
>
> I was hoping for another long-winded, content-free paragraph (or three)
> basically saying "because I said so" but still managing to get the words
> "anti-trust" in there somehow :).
ROTFLMAO!
You owe me a new keyboard!
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:41:25 +1000
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:52:01 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> >Yes, I know - I use hi res terminal fonts as well. X is still better
(and
> >given the crappiness of X fonts that's saying something).
>
> Huh ? If you don't like the X fonts, install some different ones. FYI,
> X supports Type1, True Type and bitmap fonts.
Truetype in X is very hacked on. At least it is in 3.x.x. 4.x might be
better - haven't actually gotten it working on my Linux machine.
Fonts in X are bearable *if* you manage to get the server tweaked right, and
run around the half dozen places to actaully get all the different
applications using them, but it's a PITA. Compared to Windows or Mac it's
just a joke.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 22:47:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Keith T. Williams in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Keith T. Williams in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> [...]
>> You stated that his claiming that he did something was proof it was
>> done; I pointed out that it was merely a claim, not proof he had done it
>> to any degree that anyone else would be happy with, or that it provided
>> any benefit other than his being able to claim to have done it.
>>
>> If I took people's word for whether they had 'successfully' implemented
>> Microsoft crapware, I'd be a very ignorant and naive technologist.
>> People have been claiming that for fifteen years, based solely on the
>> fact that there is no alternative which would allow for comparison; in
>> those few cases where such an opportunity exists, Microsoft software has
>> routinely been shown to be crap.
>>
>Yes Max, he did just "claim" to have done it. Just as you "claim" to be a
>technologist and an educator. And that was a very neat little wander you
>did from you
>not taking peoples word for something to microsoft's software being shown
>to be crap.
What you call 'a very neat little wander', I call not having my head up
my ass.
> I really don't care how big Microsoft's pre-load monopoly is.
Somehow that doesn't surprise me.
>If
>M$'s software as big a peice of crap as you claim, so that people couldn't
>do what they need to do, in other words, they couldn't implement what they
>need to run their businesses, then we wouldn't be having this conversation,
>we would be in alt.destroy.oracle or alt.destroy.somethingelse. The fact is
>that whatever else you may think, there are a lot of people using M$
>software
>to support their business, and they are implementing solutions that work for
>them. And if it didn't do what they wanted it too they would dump M$ in a
>second for Unix, for AS/400s or Tandem or whatever did the job.
So the story goes. LOL.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:04:55 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
David Sidlinger wrote:
> Just declare a pointer and try to write to it's location in memory w/o
> initializing it. Won't work every time, but, eventually, you're going to
> cause some freaky stuff to go on. In Windows and Unix, most of the time
> these errors are trapped and only affect the running process. However, both
> OSs will sometimes respond with something like a cascade failure. Please
> note that NT and 2000 also compartmentalize running applications within a
> security context, just like Unix. Most of the people in this NG have
> experience *administrating* NT, and therefore are usually logged in with
> administrative permissions on the machine. This allows applications they
> run to have a crack at everything on the system. End users, who don't have
> admin rights, run a far smaller risk of one of their apps writing to
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE (or something fun like that). An improperly secured Unix
> or Linux machine is just as bad as an improperly configured NT machine.
>
> - David
That could crash Windows 98, but do you honestly think writing to an invalid
memory location is going to crash Unix? Possibly in a device driver, but no
way in an app running in user mode.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: 11 Sep 2000 03:06:50 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:41:25 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:52:01 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>>
>> >Yes, I know - I use hi res terminal fonts as well. X is still better
>(and
>> >given the crappiness of X fonts that's saying something).
>>
>> Huh ? If you don't like the X fonts, install some different ones. FYI,
>> X supports Type1, True Type and bitmap fonts.
>
>Truetype in X is very hacked on. At least it is in 3.x.x.
Not true at all. There's two ways you can add it -- via xfstt ( seperate
program ) or via xfsft ( a modified XFree86 ).
FYI, Redhat ships the version of XFree with the xfsft add-on as of
version 6.x. That is, Redhat as of 6.x supports True Type. You don't
need to do any tweaking or anything.
> 4.x might be
>better - haven't actually gotten it working on my Linux machine.
4.x comes with the xfsft add-on by default.
>Fonts in X are bearable *if* you manage to get the server tweaked right, and
... Redhat ships the server "tweaked right". With distributions that don't
have it "tweaked right", a stand-alone font server is available.
Of course, this is a moot point as XFree86 4 has TrueType support built in.
>run around the half dozen places to actaully get all the different
>applications using them, but it's a PITA.
Any application that can use X fonts can use your TrueType fonts once they
are made available to the font server.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
