Linux-Advocacy Digest #49, Volume #29 Mon, 11 Sep 00 07:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Zed Meek)
Re: Windows+Linux=True (Zed Meek)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("David Brown")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Windows+Linux=True (D. Spider)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Windows+Linux=True (D. Spider)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Windows+Linux=True ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Windows+Linux=True ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Windows+Linux=True (D. Spider)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:10:45 +0100
"Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:n4uu5.514$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Explain to me exactly how you can monopolize without, um, being a
> monopoly?
>
> Easy. In fact, if you ARE a monopoly you can no longer monopolize, because
> monopolizing is action designed to GAIN a monopoly status. You might as
well
> ask 'How can one die without being dead'. The dead can't die, monopolies
> can't monopolize. Of course, being a monopoly is a less definite state
than
> being dead, which is where the confusion comes in.
> Other words you don't understand? I'm good at definitions.
>
But isn't that what capitalism is all about - maximising market share at the
expense of competitors, and maximising profit? By definition, all
businesses must be monopolists...
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:13:24 +0100
"Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:r4uu5.518$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > a) Most major corporations have documentation
> > b) You don't need documentation to write a script to change DNS entries
> > (unless you've forgotten where your DNS servers are) on Windows
machines.
> > The change is trivial, so having documentation or not is irrelevant
> >
> Where do you live? Mars? Jupiter? Sirius? It's not planet Earth for sure.
> a) many corporate networks are undocumented aggregates of undomented
> sub-networks, that have just grown over the years without any long term
> planning.
If you don't know what your network is, and where it goes, you don't deserve
to be doing the job. If you're employed to know about it, you should. If
you don't, you should be fired for non performance.
> b) anything is trivial if you know how to do it well enough, but how do
you
> find out how to do it well enough?
If you're marginally intelligent, and have a web browser (or news client),
the resources are there to be found. If you can't find the resources, you
probably are in the wrong career.
>
> This is about the unnecessary problems caused to SOME, not about the fact
> that SOME people will have no problems.
So because Unix is difficult for SOME, it's a crap product? Because Oracle
is difficult for SOME, it's a crap product?
------------------------------
From: Zed Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:41:01 GMT
In article <zFtu5.43236$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7572420206.html
>
> Real preemptability (not the fake they have now),
> somewhat less than laughable SMP (as opposed to the
> laughable MacOS 9-ish SMP they have now)
>
> "For example, as a desktop user I want to be able
> to watch a movie and hear the sound, while also
> running a browser and my mail program. And when
> I use the mail program and the browser, I don't
> want any glitches in the movie or sound. That
> really requires improvements in Linux responsiveness"
You idiot. I can watch divx movies with xmms and
browse and check email AND encode mp3's wthout my Linux
ssytem even breaking a sweat. You're just an idiot.
Get back to Microsoft.
--
"lots of white guys died to free the slaves
and their relatves are no shot at by black guys with guns
aint america great?" - me
Nigger Control Expert for #Linuxwarez @EFNet
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Zed Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:35:40 GMT
In article <yeGu5.2215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Know what i would like?
>
> Linux kernel and shell plus Windows 2000:s GUI
>
> Yeah thats right....easy enough for inexperienced users, and still the
> possibly to do some good ol' fashion die-hard nerd work in the shell
(or
> "behind the GUI", whatever you like)
Oh my GOD man. You want Linux to be futher corupted by a bunch of
ignorant morons? Linux is for hrd core users who know their shit, not
for you windoze weeneez!
> KDE and Gnome? well version 1.2 of Gnome comes a long way, but still
not
> easy enough for millions of Window users that Linux (hopefully) will
> attract... still no gnome windowmanager and a whole lot of
inconsistencies
> in the GUI.(AND rather buggy still)
KDE..Gnome..bloated desktop mangers. I can do the same thing withthe
command line interface. Get a clue, people. go back to windows.
--
"lots of white guys died to free the slaves
and their relatves are no shot at by black guys with guns
aint america great?" - me
Nigger Control Expert for #Linuxwarez @EFNet
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:29:18 GMT
"David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I had written a very poor emulation of an OS that hadn't done anything
> new in the past twenty years, I'd give it away too.
Why do you consider Linux to be an "emulation of an OS"? And in what
ways do you think 20-years old Unix (that would be, what? Version 7?
System III?) is superior?
> This brings up another beef I have with Linux.
> If it's supposed to be free, why do I have to pay RedHat $2500 to
> get an Oracle-optimized version, and then pay them another
> ten grand a year just to get some real support for the thing?!?!
Because you are stupid enough to buy expensive buzzwords, or
too incompetent to set up your own Oracle server, or just happy to pay
for a warm, fuzzy feeling? Or because you think RH support is worth
it.
And, by the way, what does Red Hat's pricing have to do with Linux?
Are you suggesting that since Linus Torvalds gave you the OS, RedHat
is obligated to work for you for free? Oracle support is expensive on
any OS, live with it or use something else.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:55:38 +0200
su (from the resource kit) is good as far as it goes (why is the resource
kit not standard, by the way? It provides a lot of essential utilities,
like su, that should have been included with the OS, and it provides the
manual that should have been included). But su is limited on NT, as NT is
not a multi-user OS and cannot cope properly with multiple users. For
example, there are a lot of jobs that are very difficult to do without
access through explorer (such as setting things in the control panel), and
that runs as the main user regardless of any "su" in effect. That means if
you want to do something like look at the DNS settings on a machine, you
must log in as the administrator.
Stuart Fox wrote in message <8pi31t$5fl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> *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'.
>>
>For NT 4, check the Resource Kit. For Windows 2000, check runas (or right
>click on a shortcut and choose run as a different user)
>
>
>
------------------------------
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, 11 Sep 2000 10:18:49 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ph3mm$n3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> For software like the newer versions of Quicken the "programmers" have
> surrendered the control of the appearence, quality, performance, and
> behavior of their software to the whims of those who developed the
rendering
> software AKA browser. This is not the action of rational, experienced,
> competent, professional programmers. HTML is useful and valid for its
> intended purpose but this is not it.
Not even if:
(1) it provides an interface that users are comfortable with (the web)
(2) it allows for the inclusion of lots of text on the screen to explain the
UI
(3) the interface was originally forms based, and as such could be easily
turned into a single page with hyperlinks?
Simon
------------------------------
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, 11 Sep 2000 10:23:51 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You honestly haven't a clue, Erik, just how far and wide my knowledge
> and information are on this or any other technical subject.
Do you know the difference between interpolation, extrapolation, and factual
analysis, Max?
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:26:09 GMT
It appears that on Sun, 10 Sep 2000 06:54:22 GMT, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy "Ingemar Lundin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Know what i would like?
>
>Linux kernel and shell plus Windows 2000:s GUI
>
>Yeah thats right....easy enough for inexperienced users, and still the
>possibly to do some good ol' fashion die-hard nerd work in the shell (or
>"behind the GUI", whatever you like)
>
>KDE and Gnome? well version 1.2 of Gnome comes a long way, but still not
>easy enough for millions of Window users that Linux (hopefully) will
>attract... still no gnome windowmanager and a whole lot of inconsistencies
>in the GUI.(AND rather buggy still)
>
>there you have it
Huh? No window manager? WTF are you talking about, Sawfish is the
"official" wm, WindowMaker, ICEWM, Enlightenment, and several other
wms support it as well.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
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, 11 Sep 2000 10:29:51 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, we all know its better to tie your HTML code to using only
> Microsoft's browser. Idiot. I'm getting bored.
Hmmm...
Quicken is a Windows app; so they may as well tie it to Microsoft's browser,
as it's the only one out there that provides programmable interfaces (other
than Gecko, which is still a work-in-progress).
Note: It's only using the browser as a display surface. All the code on the
back is written by them. This means that they don't have to worry about
displaying graphics (and all the nasty glue code needed to do so). They
don't have to worry about fonts. They don't even have to worry about
printing -- except for check printing -- which makes their lives even
easier. They can also integrate their website with the product, which makes
their and the user's overall experience better (because they can get live
information, and not be limited by what's ready to ship on the CD at the
time).
IE lets you bind code directly to every element on a page. It lets you
override the behavior of everything. By using this functionality, you end up
with a highly flexible API that you can use for UI display -- and one that
also massively reduces the amount of code that has to be written to put
together a first-class interface; you don't have to worry about layout,
partial redraw (for speed), display handling, palette handling -- you just
build your interface in memory, squirt it at the browser, bind to the sites,
and hey presto -- it's as if you'd coded it all up by hand.
It means they can concentrate on the nitty-gritty, and provide a very easily
navigatable user interface.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:27:18 GMT
It appears that on Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:21:56 -0400, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry McBride) wrote:
>Now you're talking! The WPS on Linux would be terrific! But... have you ever
>used the gui on NEXT? That might, just might, be more port-able than the wps
>and thus more likely to appear on Linux.
http://www.gnustep.org/
To quote RMS, "You aren't paying me, so don't ask when it will be
ready, ask what you can do to help."
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
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, 11 Sep 2000 10:30:58 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Why?
>
> Mostly because the control mechanisms are pre-constructed, rather
> limited, and not great in number. A web page is a paradigm created for
> *browsing* information, not manipulating it.
All of which are overridable. You don't have to keep the default behavior.
You just bind to the element, and override it.
Think of it as a super-Javascript, that can control the behavior *in detail*
of every element on the page, more than even the DOM will currently let you
do.
Simon
------------------------------
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, 11 Sep 2000 10:33:32 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:chVu5.650$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You're showing your incompetance again Max. COM objects do not suffer
from
> DLL Hell. They were specifically designed to prevent versioning issues.
Unfortunately, IE 5.5 broke several COM behavior contracts. Bugs have been
filed in their databases on them after long talks with QA people there...
but it would appear unlikely that they'll be fixed *sigh*.
> Windows has a systemwide spell checker. Any product (and many do, such as
> Word, Lotus, etc..) can create spell check compatible engines and plug
them
> in. Then products like IE, Outlook, and any other program that wishes to
> implement it can take advantage of them. To date, however, not that many
> programs do take advantage of it. (I know of only Eudora, OE, and Outlook
> and of course Word, which provides the Common Spelling API engine).
Ummm... how do you bind to this? (cough) might be useful. Any links to any
docs? I've not found any yet myself.
Simon
------------------------------
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, 11 Sep 2000 10:37:45 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, 'can' being the operative word. Silly me, I would expect 'does' to
> be rather more convincing, if you are trying to refute the idea that
> 'componentized software' is a boondoggle.
He just said that Microsoft Word, and Lotus *do* provide that service. And
Eudora, Outlook Express, Outlook, Word and others (IIRC, Front Page and a
number of oither apps use it, such as Page2Script) utilize that
functionality. That's not a *CAN*. That's a *DOES*.
> >As for the common dialogs. It's *VERY* rare that I find an app that
wasn't
> >ported from Windows 3.1 or the Mac that doesn't use the common dialogs.
>
> You're showing your inexperience again. *MICROSOFT's* own software
> doesn't use the common dialogs. And did I mention that I hesitated to
> even provide examples, knowing that the trolls were going to go into
> handwaving mode?
I suspect it's more likely because you don't have any examples. Firm
examples can't be handwaved away -- either they do or they don't use the
Common Dialogs.
> >And of course you *CAN* use components of outlook. Look up the Outlook
> >automation interface.
>
> No, that would be 'a developer can use components of outlook'. And
> you'll notice that none do.
Many many many developers do -- but not usually in shrink-wrap products that
you can buy in stores (exceptions being PDA synch software for the palm).
Outlook is useful to bind to for *INTRANET* work.
Besides... how do you think that the ILoveYou virus worked? :)
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:57:57 GMT
yeah ...youre sooo hardcore aint you "Zed"?
Standard answer from a peak geek <gasp>
bring me something new will'ya?
/IL
"Zed Meek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:8pi5gr$m9n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <yeGu5.2215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Know what i would like?
> >
> > Linux kernel and shell plus Windows 2000:s GUI
> >
> > Yeah thats right....easy enough for inexperienced users, and still the
> > possibly to do some good ol' fashion die-hard nerd work in the shell
> (or
> > "behind the GUI", whatever you like)
>
> Oh my GOD man. You want Linux to be futher corupted by a bunch of
> ignorant morons? Linux is for hrd core users who know their shit, not
> for you windoze weeneez!
>
> > KDE and Gnome? well version 1.2 of Gnome comes a long way, but still
> not
> > easy enough for millions of Window users that Linux (hopefully) will
> > attract... still no gnome windowmanager and a whole lot of
> inconsistencies
> > in the GUI.(AND rather buggy still)
>
> KDE..Gnome..bloated desktop mangers. I can do the same thing withthe
> command line interface. Get a clue, people. go back to windows.
>
>
> --
> "lots of white guys died to free the slaves
> and their relatves are no shot at by black guys with guns
> aint america great?" - me
> Nigger Control Expert for #Linuxwarez @EFNet
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:59:37 GMT
maybe you have missed something?
Gnome does not! have a OWN! windowmanager; ie a "gvm" or "gwm"
/IL
> Huh? No window manager? WTF are you talking about, Sawfish is the
> "official" wm, WindowMaker, ICEWM, Enlightenment, and several other
> wms support it as well.
>
>
>
>
> #####################################################
> My email address is posted for purposes of private
> correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
> to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
> kind.
> Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
> altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
> is barred from archiving my messages.
> #####################################################
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:03:41 GMT
It appears that on Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:59:37 GMT, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy "Ingemar Lundin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>maybe you have missed something?
>
>Gnome does not! have a OWN! windowmanager; ie a "gvm" or "gwm"
I think you are the one that missed something. Gnome does not want or
need a gwm. Sawmill serves the useful parts of that role, without
dissing other wms that have put in the time and effort to support it,
and the users that prefer them.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
